& « 




I 





* 
1 









AN 

EXPOSITION" AND DEFENCE 

OF THE 

PRESBYTERIAN FORM 

OF 

CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 

IN REPLY TO EPISCOPAL AND INDEPENDENT 
WRITERS. 



BY 

THE KEY. DAYID KING, LL.D., 

GLASGOW. 




EDINBURGH: 
JOHNSTONE AND HUNTER. 

LONDON I R. THEOBALD. GLASGOW ', J. R. MACNALR. 
M.DCCC.LIV. 



EDINBURGH : 
PRINTED BY JOHNSTONE AND HUNTER, 
HIGH STREET. 



TO 

JOHN HENDEBSON, ESQ., 

OF PAEK. 



My Dear Sir, 

You have, in the Dedication of this Work to 
you, a token of the value which I attach to your ever-faithful 
friendship, and to the great encouragement which your most 
kind co-operation has afforded me in the discharge of varied 
duty. 

That you may be long spared to be a blessing to your 
friends ; to promote abounding charity among all the friends 
of Christ ; to give effective countenance to pure literature 
and evangelical religion ; and to carry on those measures of 
benevolence which are the honour of our day and country 
— and some of which, under God, owe their being to none 
so much as to yourself — is the fervent desire and prayer 
of, 

Mt Dear Sir, 

Your Friend and Pastor, 

DAVID KING. 



PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 



The alterations made in this edition are not 
numerous or extensive. Some typographical 
errors have been corrected ; a few paragraphs 
have been modified for the sake of greater 
precision and perspicuity ; and, finally, several 
references and notes have been introduced in 
elucidation and support of my principal positions. 
Though these changes may seem individually 
small, they will be found collectively to be of 
some importance, and to render the wort, as I 
trust, more readable and convincing. 

I have to acknowledge the courtesy of re- 
viewers who differ from me in their views of 
Church Government. The spirit of their stric- 
tures gives perhaps more promise of union than 
even the frankness of their concessions. 



ii 



PREFACE. 



Excellent amendments have been suggested 
to me by friends whose judgment I highly 
respect. But some of the topics they propose 
for consideration, such as the Spirituality of the 
Church, and the Administration of Discipline, I 
have treated of elsewhere — in my volume on the 
Lord's Supper, and that on the Euling Eldership 
of the Christian Church. And almost all the 
improvements recommended are of the nature 
of additions, which appear to me on that ground 
questionable, as, to a large class of readers, " a 
great book is a great evil/' 

I conclude by expressing my heartfelt delight 
that Christian Churches have so much in com- 
mon ; and I am fully persuaded that if we only 
worked out faithfully our agreements, most of 
our differences would speedily disappear. The 
Lord hasten it in his time ! * 

* The above Preface, and the amendments to which it refers, 
were jotted a number of months ago, without being regarded 
by me as finished. I was prevented, however, by severe and 
protracted illness from revising them; so that the printers 
had to do their best with somewhat illegible markings, and 
the correction of the proofs devolved on the Rev. Dr Gardner, 
of Edinburgh, who honoured me by performing this friendly 
service. It is superfluous for me to speak of the value of his 
writings ; but having occasion to mention his name, I cannot 
forbear from calling special attention to his " Christian Cyclo- 



PREFACE. 



iii 



psedia," as being a work of unusual importance, and supplying 
an important desideratum in Christian literature. 

Dr Wardlaw is no more! Much delightful co-operation I 
have had with him in philanthropic and religious movements. 
But he is gone from us. Bereaved kindred — his attached 
church— an admiring public— will see his face no more ! There 
are few such men in any religious connection. It is a dis- 
tinction to a country and an age to possess a minister and a 
writer of such high and varied eminence. But the small and 
the great go hence ; and now we recognise the value of his 
presence in the blank, and gloom, and weakness attendant on 
his removal. His usefulness, however, is not closed : he being 
dead yet speaketh : he will do good by his writings for many 
ages to come ; so that whUe he rests from his labours he will 
be followed by his works. His name is largely introduced in 
this volume ; and I cannot help feeling as if a melancholy 
were cast over the whole discussion by his lamented decease. 
I am pleased, however, that he had an opportunity of replying 
to the strictures here offered if he had been so disposed. And 
far more gratified am I to think that our interchange of con- 
troversial criticisms never suspended or in the smallest degree 
qualified the friendliness of our intercourse. 

Roseneath, Jan, 2, 1854. 



PEEFAGE TO FIEST EDITION. 



A volume which I published some years ago on 
the Ruling Eldership of the Christian Church was 
partly argumentative and partly practical. The 
argumentative part elicited some strictures from 
Drs Wardlaw and Davidson. In preparing a new 
edition I was led to reply to such objections; but 
I found the work assuming both a magnitude and 
a controversial character altogether unsuitable to 
a simple manual for elders. I therefore changed 
my plan, and made the Third Edition of my 
treatise on the Eldership more specially didactic, 
with only a brief statement of the proof for the 
office of Ruling Elder, of which I there delineate 
the duties, and intimated my intention to merge 
the reasoning formerly employed, in such a gene- 
ral defence of Presbyterian Church Government 
as is now offered to the public. 

Under the circumstances just stated, I might 



VL 



PREFACE. 



have made a free use of that portion of my former 
volume which accorded with my present design, 
since it was not to reappear otherwise. But re- 
newed examination of the subject led me into 
new trains of thought, proof, and illustration ; 
and the result is that few passages are common 
to the two treatises. 

From the title of this volume the reader will 
be prepared to find that I take decided views, and 
vindicate one system of polity in preference to 
others. It does not follow that I advocate an 
existing Presbyterianism unqualifiedly and indis- 
criminately — that I perceive everything among 
ourselves to be right, and all things in w T hich ou 
neighbours differ from us to be wrong. Such 
partisanship will never promote the discovery o 
truth, nor bring our debates by one step neare 
to a conclusion. 

We are sadly ignorant of ourselves, and fre- 
quently we know not what spirit we are of. That 
I have nowhere in these pages transgressed the 
laws of Christian charity and courtesy, I dare not 
assert. But I have certainly aimed to treat op- 
ponents respectfully, to meet their arguments 
fairly, and to offer no reply to the reader which 
I did not feel, on calm reflection, to be satisfac- 
tory to myself. 



PREFACE. 



vii 



While I have defended Presbyterianism in the 
honest belief that it is defensible on good grounds, 
though admitting in various points of nearer 
approximation to the primitive model, I have 
rejoiced to find, that without underestimating a 
single argument, or compromising one iota of my 
convictions, I- have been induced to moderate, in 
several important particulars, my estimate of 
denominational differences ; and I would reckon 
myself favoured beyond expression if this small 
work should convey to others the same per- 
suasion, and thus advance Christian conciliation 
and co-operative beneficence. 

It will be easy for an objector to complain of 
omissions, and to mention able defences of Epis- 
copacy and Independency of which I have not 
taken any notice. My answer is, that I could 
not undertake to answer all such writings, how- 
ever deserving they may be of consideration ; and 
that no one will accuse me of a deficiency of 
courage in my selection of opponents, if, under 
any aspect, I may apply that name to my distin- 
guished and venerable friend, Dr Wardlaw. 

It will not be supposed that in bringing out 
another vindication of Presbyterianism with special 
adaptation to the present day, I undervalue prior 
publications in behalf of the same cause. I freely 



viii 



PREFACE. 



acknowledge my obligations to them, and I have 
doubtless derived from them more benefit than I 
am now able to trace to its sources. Not to speak 
of older works, much valuable service has been 
rendered, of late years, to the Ecclesiastical Polity 
of which I approve, by such men as Drs Miller, 
Smyth, and Barnes, in America, and by Drs 
Brown, Mitchell, Lorimer, and M'Kerrow, in 
this country. The strictures on Dr Wardlaw's 
defence of Independency, by the last-named 
writer, which appeared in successive numbers of 
the United Presbyterian Magazine, will amply 
reward careful perusal. 

In preparing this volume, I have found brethren 
of different denominations so ready to afford me 
all facilities in the prosecution of my undertaking, 
that I cannot here specify their acts of helpful 
kindness. I must not, however, fail to acknow- 
ledge the valuable aid afforded me by my learned, 
judicious, and highly-esteemed friend, Professor 
Lindsay, who revised the whole work as it was 
passing through the press, and in different in- 
stances suggested amendments of material con- 
sequence. 

As the general line of argument which I have 
here followed has engaged my thoughts through 
a course of years, I do not feel entitled to make 



PREFACE. 



ix 



any apology for it, or to ask for it any forbearance. 
But my plan has been worked out amid numerous 
and distracting engagements ; and therefore I 
fully anticipate that flaws will be detected in the 
details of execution. As to the main principles 
I have no misgivings ; and I invite a thorough 
scrutiny of them, in the conviction that they are 
scriptural, and that the more they are examined, 
they will the more appear worthy of Him who is 
not the author of confusion, but of order, as in 
all churches of the saints. 

DAVID KING. 

Glasgow, 10$ March 1853, 



CONTENTS. 



PART I. 

INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 

Page 

I. Our appeal must be to Scripture ; not for minute details, 
but for guiding principles— The office of reason not 
thereby disparaged— Reasoning without revelation 
would here afford no sure direction. Of importance 
that Christ should be the legislator of his Church in 
respect to its peace, to secure for it a constitution 
worthy of his wisdom, and for the sake of the invalu- 
able benefits resulting from good government. II. 
The primitive churches unquestionably had a consti- 
tution. All that was extraordinary in it is inimitable, 
and must be held to have been temporary ; but all that 
admits of adoption retains its obligations— Illustrative 
examples. Local usages are not authoritative patterns 
— Examples. Institutions which were then common 
to churches of all climes must be binding on churches 
of all ages, 17 

PART n. 

ON DEACONS. 

CHAPTER I. 

That the primitive churches had Deacons, universally admit- 
ted — Proofs of the existence of this order in the apos- 
tolic age — The special nature of their office disputed — 
Paul's Epistles do not indicate their peculiar functions 
—The seven spoken of in Acts chap. vi. are not called 
Deacons— That the seven, however, were Deacons, and 
that their charge shows the character of the Deacon's 
work, may be inferred from the manner of their ap- 
pointment ; from the language used respecting them ; 
from the qualifications required of Deacons ; and from 
historical testimony, 29 



xii 



CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER II. 

Page 

The Deaconship of the seven derives confirmation from the 
consequences of controverting this position, . .47 



CHAPTER III. 

The scriptural model of Deacons has not been closely ad- 
hered to by Episcopalians, Independents, or Presbyte- 
rians, 49 



PART III. 



ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH BY PRESBYTERS. 
CHAPTER I. 

The primitive churches had Presbyters or Elders— Whether 
above these office-bearers there was an order of Prelates, 
to be afterwards considered — The power of Elders now 
viewed in relation to popular rights and Congregational 
principles — Acknowledgment due to Congregational- 
ists— Dr Wardlaw's definition of Independent polity — 
Independents concede that Presbyters were rulers of 
the primitive churches ; yet assign such duties to the 
members of a church generally, as to annul the dis- 
tinctive rule of Elders, and even bring the governors 
under subjection to the governed : then, to qualify the 
unworkableness of democracy, they impose such re- 
straints on the people as in effect to crush their freedom, 
and lodge in the pastorate a despotic authority, . . 57 



CHAPTER II. 

Scripture does not teach us that pastors and their flocks 
should be conjoined in the government of the church 
—In behalf of this system of polity our Lord's law 
for the settlement of private offences, Matt, xviii. 
15-17. and the functions assigned to ordinary members 
of the church, 1 Cor. v., vi., are vainly pleaded, . . 74 



CHAPTER III. 



The Congregationalist system of government is not neces- 
sary to Christian freedom, 93 



CONTENTS. 



xiii 



PART IV. 

ON THE DISTINCTION OF TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 

CHAPTER L 

Page 

The Question stated, 99 

CHAPTER JL 

The distinction pleaded for has its foundation in facts, 101 

CHAPTER III. 

Teaching and Ruling Elders are distinguished in Scripture 
— Full consideration of Rom. xii. 6-8 ; 1 Cor. xii. 28 ; 
and 1 Tim. v. 17, 103 

CHAPTER IV. 

That the primitive Elders were not all teaching Elders, 
appears from their number, 128 

CHAPTER V. 

The distinction of Teaching and Ruling Elders has been 
very generally acknowledged by Christian authors and 
Christian denominations down to a recent period, . 142 

CHAPTER VI. 

Benefits which would result to Independent Churches, and 
to the Methodist Connection, from instituting a Ruling 
Eldership, 162 



PART V. 

ON THE SUBORDINATION OF PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES ; OR, 
DIOCESAN EPISCOPACY. 

CHAPTER I. 

High ground taken by a portion of Episcopal writers — 
Importance attached by them to Apostolical Succession 
—Consequences of the doctrine— The Episcopal form 
of government might be the best, independently of the 
doctrine of Succession, 174 



xiv 



CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER II. 

Page 

The leading constituents of the Prelatical system— It finds 
a semblance of support in the language of the New 
Testament, which makes mention of Bishops, Presby- 
ters, and Deacons — But the Bishops and Presbyters of 
Scripture are the same class of functionaries under 
different designations, and are not two orders — Many 
Episcopalians, perceiving and acknowledging the iden- 
tity of scriptural Bishops and Presbyters, have relin- 
quished all defence of the divine right of Episcopacy, 188 

CHAPTER lit 

Some Episcopalians hold that their system is sanctioned 
by Scripture, and maintain that the apostles filled the 
same office as Prelates, and constituted the highest 
of three grades of clergy, .196 

CHAPTER IV. 

The scriptural argument for Episcopacy wars with scrip- 
tural diction — The examples brought to countenance 
such changes as it supposes in the meaning of terms 
are not in point— History appealed to without success 
— The writings of John do not show that language 
was then in a transition state, and verging towards 
Episcopal terminology, . * . . . .197 

CHAPTER V. 

Sect. I. — Episcopacy, in its scriptural argument, con- 
founds ORDERS WIDELY SEPARATED IN THE NEW TES- 
TAMENT, classing under one grade the twelve, Timothy 
and Titus, and the angels of the churches of Asia — 
The title Apostle sometimes used generally in the 
sense of messenger— Examples— Apostles, in the offi- 
cial sense of the term, were made cognisant of the 
whole counsel of God in the gospel by immediate in- 
spiration — They required to^ have seen the risen 
Saviour, that they might be witnesses of his resurrec- 
tion — Examination of the objection, that Timothy and 
others, without this qualification, were called apostles 
— The apostles, besides working miracles, were em- 
powered to confer miraculous gifts on others — From 
such considerations, it appears that the apostolic office 
was extraordinary and temporary, and that the 
apostles have no successors, 204 

Sect. IL — The ministry of Timothy and Titus considered 
— They were invested with high powers, but these 



CONTENTS. 



XV 



Page 

powers were held and exercised in subordination to 
auostles — Timothy was not Bishop of Ephesus, nor 
Titus of Crete— By the showing of Episcopalians, 
Timothy and Titus were not merely Bishops, but 
Archbishops ; and this preferment of these office- 
bearers is fatal to the argument derived from their 
practice against Presbyterian ordination, . . . 223 

Sect. III.— The Angels of the seven churches of Asia de- 
clared to be compeers of the Apostles— Some plausi- 
bility in the allegation that they were superior to 
Presbyters— The Revelation is not a book of easy 
interpretation — The argument would prove too much 
for its friends — It is not supported by the use of the 
word Angel in other parts of the?Apocalypse— Even 
in the controverted passage, our Lord sometimes ad- 
dresses an Angel in the plural number — If it were 
proved that the angels were Bishops, they could only 
have been Bishops of parishes, and not of dioceses, . 230 



CHAPTER VI. 

Sect. I. — Episcopacy invalidates that authority of 
Presbyters which Scripture is careful to esta- 
blish, more especially as regards government and 
ordination — The evidence on which Presbyters are 
denied these functions is almost wholly negative— 
This mode of proof is not conclusive, and it recoils 
on Episcopalians, 240 

Sect. II— There is evidence that Elders were entrusted 
with government — The power is expressly ascribed 
to them— The ascription of it is not accompanied 
with reservations in behalf of Prelates — The adminis- 
tration of discipline in certain recorded cases was not 
prelatic — There is sufficient ground to conclude that 
Elders, besides ruling the flock, exercised inspection 
over each other, 242 

Sect. III. — On Ordination as a service claimed by Pre- 
lates—The nature of the rite does not show that it is 
unsuitable for Presbyters — The refusal of this power 
to Presbyters is inconsistent with the argument for 
three orders founded by Episcopalians on the Consti- 
tution of the Old Testament Church — No arguments 
against Presbyterate Ordination can be derived from 
Ordination by Apostles and Evangelists— Presbyters 
are not interdicted by Scripture from Ordaining — The 
state of the Pastorate in Apostolic times indicates that 
Apostles were not the only ordainers— An instance of 



xvi CONTENTS. 

Page 

ordination by Presbyters is recorded in the New Testa- 
ment—The right of Elders to ordain is confirmed by 
history— Result of the argument, . . . .253 
Sect. IV.— Concluding Remarks, 285 



PART VI. 

ON THE COMMON GOVERNMENT OF CHURCHES BY 
REPRESENTATIVE COUNCILS. 

CHAPTER I. 

We have, in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts of the 
Apostles, an account of a Council held at Jerusalem, 290 

CHAPTER II. 

In the Apostolic age there was a plurality of Churches in 
each of a number of cities, and the several Churches 
of each city had a common government, . . . 297 

Sect. I.— In such large cities as Jerusalem and Ephesus 
the Christians and their teachers were so numerous 
that we cannot reasonably suppose them to have met 
only in one place for worship, . . . . . 298 

Sect. II. — In such large cities the Christians certainly met 
for worship in different places, and the Christians 
attending different places of meeting in the same city 
formed distinct Churches, 307 

Sect. III. — Sectional churches belonged to aggregate 
churches, and had a common government, . . .315 

CHAPTER III. 

Duties have been assigned to the Churches which they can- 
not perform in a state of isolation and independency, 318 
Sect. I. — Churches are required to secure a qualified 



ministry, 318 

Sect. II. — Churches are required to guard their purity, . 322 
Sect. III.— Churches are charged with the duty of extend- 
ing the gospel, .329 

Conclusion, . 342 

APPENDIX. 

Objections urged against the position that "the seven " 
were Deacons, 353 



PART I, 

INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 



I. Our appeal must be to Scripture ; not for minute details, but 
for guiding principles— The 'office of reason not thereby- 
disparaged — Reasoning without revelation would here 
afford no sure direction. Of importance that Christ should 
be the legislator of his church in respect to its peace, to 
secure for it a constitution worthy of his wisdom, and for 
the sake of the invaluable benefits resulting from good 
government. II. The primitive churches unquestionably 
had a constitution. All that was extraordinary in it is 
inimitable, and must be held to have been temporary ; but 
all that admits of adoption retains its obligations — Illus- 
trative examples. Local usages are not authoritative pat- 
terns — Examples. Institutions which were then common 
to churches of all climes must be binding on churches of 
all ages. 

I. Any form of church government is satisfactorily 
defended only in so far as its essential constituents are 
proved to be in accordance with Scripture. It is true 
that we are not furnished, under the dispensation of 
the Spirit, with any such formal pattern of ecclesias- 
tical polity as was shown to Moses in the mount. The 
hints and examples which the New Testament affords 
for our guidance in this departmenj ^ften indicate 



18 



INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 



rather than delineate duty, and leave room for the 
exercise of Christian expediency in executing our in- 
structions. But without alleging that a Divine hand 
has here discriminated for us the legitimate and the 
forbidden grounds by completed fences, having every 
post and stake precisely adjusted, we may yet look 
for those landmarks which shall betoken the general 
divisions of the country, which shall assist without 
superseding minuter measurements and partitionings, 
and which have only to be known and respected to 
secure the invaluable blessings of a kind and righteous 
administration. 

These observations disparage in no degree the 
healthful exercise of judgment: let a sound mind do 
all it can accomplish. Eeason and revelation have 
one Author; and where in any case they furnish 
direction on the same subject, they are mutually 
illustrative and confirmatory of one another. But, 
though we may take advantage of the light of nature 
so often as it shines with appreciable distinctness, 
yet if we had no other guidance in our examination 
of ecclesiastical polities, I see not that we could reach 
any clear and well-established conclusions regarding 
their merits, In all reasoning we must have some 
data. It is impossible to argue from expediency 
itself without laying down common principles. But 
the principles of expediency — what are they, and 
where to be found? Whether sought in the human 
constitution, or the social compact, or the pages of 
history, they are so hard to be ascertained and settled, 
and our estimate of them is so exceedingly affected 



INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 



19 



by our position, education, and interests, that we 
\ could hardly determine, by merely prudential con- 
siderations, what we were to take for granted ; and 
for want of premises, we should be precluded from 
drawing deductions. 

'No doubt important treatises have been written on 
the comparative advantages of different forms of civil 
government. But even the best of these works evince 
a frequent perplexity in the absence of authoritative 
and indisputable postulates. And were the relations 
and duties of temporal citizenship ever so lucidly ex- 
pounded, and unerringly demonstrated, there is so 
much of peculiarity in the nature and obligations of 
ecclesiastical confederation, that just notions of poli- 
tical fitness might only mislead us, if we applied them 
without modification and without exception to the 
government of Christ's house. Therefore we must 
have some other and better ground than expediency 
to stand upon in deciding between rival schemes of 
church order, and our determining query must be — 
What saith the Scripture? 

This preliminary question, as to how far proof 
| may be here expected and sought from the Word of 
God, is important, essentially affecting the validity of 
j all our subsequent reasoning, and, at the risk of being 
! tedious, I solicit for it deliberate consideration. That 
: Christ should assign his church no form of government, 
is, I submit, a position highly improbable in itself. 
! The church must have some constitution; and on 
many grounds it appears of great and manifest im- 
portance that he should be its Legislator. 



20 



INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 



(1.) He is the Prince of Peace, and he promised 
peace to his people. But how could the societies of 
his worshippers be peacefully organised if the mode 
of organization were optional, and left to be deter- 
mined by their own fallible and conflicting judgments? 
Under such conditions discord would be inevitable. 
It is true that strifes about church government have 
actually arisen, and that no extent of privilege secures 
an imperfect discipleship against their occurrence. 
But the conflicts which result from the neglect of a 
standard are always more or less restrained, even while 
they last, by that standard; and they admit of even- 
tual and satisfactory settlement. Whereas differences 
accruing from ivant of a standard have no moderating 
element, and furnish no means either of prevention or 
of cure. Therefore they must yield unavoidable and 
interminable troubles. 

(2.) It was* of high importance that Christ should 
legislate for his church in order to secure for it a 
constitution worthy of his wisdom. We have seen 
that the peace of the church requires that its King 
and Head should furnish its constitution. This con- 
sideration holds good, irrespectively of the merits of 
different forms of government. Although they were 
equally eligible in themselves, it would still be of im- 
mense consequence for the peace of the church to 
have a preference of one above another appointed and 
enjoined. But different systems of ecclesiastical ad- 
ministration have no such parity of excellence. Few 
things, not identical in kind, have the same value in 
themselves, or fitness for a specific end. That diverse 



INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 



21 



forms of rule should form an exception, and should so 
approximate in worth as to make the choice between 
them a matter of indifference, is inconceivable ; for 
nowhere is a happy medium more liable to be missed 
than in the modelling of superintendence ; and no- 
where does human nature show a stronger pr oneness 
to incline to one or other of opposite extremes. In so 
far as good government is secured, it is inexpressibly 
valuable in itself. It treats the governed as citizens' 
and not as serfs ; it allows the greatest freedom con- 
sistent with order ; it establishes presidency without 
oppression, and liberty without licentiousness. 

(3.) That Christ should legislate for his church will 
appear highly important if we look to practical results. 
Under this aspect, government is of moment, if any- 
thing be of moment in the Christian church, inasmuch 
as all interests are affected by its influence. According 
as rule is good or bad, truth will be maintained or 
betrayed, and the administration of scriptural disci- 
pline will be enforced or relaxed. Principal Campbell, 
though he is very moderate, not to say latitudinarian 
in his views, as to the divine appointment of any form 
of church government, yet acknowledges that " a cer- 
tain external model of government must have been 
originally adopted for the more effectual preservation 
of the evangelical institution in its native purity, and 
for the careful transmission of it to after ages; and that 
a presumptuous encroachment on what is evidently so 
instituted is justly reprehensible." Elsewhere he says : 
" Certain it is that one model of church government 
may be much better calculated for promoting belief 



22 



INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 



and obedience than another. Nay, it is not impossible 
that such changes may be introduced as are much 
more fitted for obstructing the influence of true reli- 
gion than for advancing it ; nay, for inspiring a 
contrary temper, and nourishing the most dangerous 
vices."* The influence of government is thus most 
extensive, not to say all-comprehensive, for good or 
evil ; and if we could trace all the impression it has 
made on doctrinal belief and ecclesiastical supervision 
and practical piety, there would be no longer any pre- 
text for classing the subject here to be discussed with 
the idle questions which minister strife rather than 
godly edifying. 

II. But in all this line of remark we are reason- 
ing, it may be said, from mere probability — stating 
what we might expect, and not what we actually 
find. To come to facts, then, ascertained and un- 
doubted facts, we know that the primitive church 
had a constitution. Who can deny that its affairs 
were regulated in a definite and orderly manner? 
" For God," says the apostle of the Gentiles, " is not 
the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all 
churches of the saints." | If, then, a certain order 
was instituted in the primitive church, by which 
confusion was excluded, why should not this " church 
order" be retained? Although the apostles had said 
nothing about retaining it, yet as they set it up, and 
acted on it themselves, should we not recognise, in 

* On Ecclesiastical History. Lect. iv. and Lect. viii. 
f 1 Cor. xiv. 33. 



INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 



23 



their example, an imperative precept ? " Those 
things," says one of their number, " which ye have 
both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in 
me, do : and the God of peace shall be with you/'* 
It may be objected, that a retention of the primitive 
system is impracticable — that it was adapted for its 
own day, and no other ; and now, when it is gone, 
admits not of being recalled. But let this ground 
be considered before it is occupied. What does it 
suppose ? That Christ appointed a government for 
his church which could not be perpetuated ; that he 
nurtured habits and attachments in favour of a certain 
system, to be ruptured almost as soon as matured! 
It supposes that the church had a constitution by 
which to guide itself under the apostles, and was then 
cast on a sea of change, just when apostolic pilotage 
was withdrawn! It is surely more credible that the 
apostles set in operation a plan which the churches 
would do well, after their decease, to have always in 
remembrance. 

Still it may be objected that much of the apostolic 
administration was manifestly extraordinary, and 
therefore cannot be upheld in ordinary times. The 
reply is obvious, that what was manifestly extraordi- 
nary can give us no perplexity, as on that very ac- 
count it is manifestly not binding. The apostolic 
office, as I shall afterwards endeavour to show, was 
itself of this character. The same doctrine will be 
established as to the evangelists, who performed like 
work as the apostles, under their direction ; and no 
* Phil. iv. 9. 



24 INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 



demonstration is needed that miracles, and gifts of 
healing, and diversities of tongues, belonged exclu- 
sively to the age of supernatural endowments. 

If, then, all the offices in the primitive church had 
borne the impress of this uncommon and transient 
character, there would have been no ground for 
pleading their permanency. But if some were dif- 
ferent in their nature ; if some had duties attached to 
them which may still be performed, and qualifications 
required for them which may still be possessed ; if 
these were instituted universally in the primitive 
churches; and if the discharge of their functions 
would secure, at all times, the maintenance and ex- 
tension of the Kedeemer's kingdom, then are we not 
equally bound to hold such offices inviolate, as if they 
alone had subsisted from the beginning ? If ever they 
could have been readily dispensed with, it was surely 
in the apostolic age, when inspiration and miracles 
might have accomplished their objects ; and why 
should they, even at that time, have been assigned to 
the churches, if not to mark the more emphatically 
their indispensable and ever-enduring character? 

Thus far the case has been stated hypothetically, 
that the nature of the argument might be better ap- 
prehended. But I now state positively that there 
were such divinely-appointed offices, and that we 
have no right whatever to abolish or alter them. 
Whenever a number of persons were converted under 
the preaching of the apostles or their fellow-labourers, 
these converts were formed into a society, and ob- 
tained for their stated and proper officers, bishops 



INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 



25 



and deacons. Only some churches were favoured 
with the ministrations of apostles and evangelists, 
and these churches enjoyed that distinction only for 
limited periods, and at remote intervals ; but every 
church, no matter when planted, or by whom watered, 
or to what country belonging, had bishops and 
deacons for its fixed and abiding office-bearers. The 
epistle to the Philippians is addressed to " all saints 
in Christ Jesus, which are at Philippi, with the 
bishops and deacons : " no mention is made of other 
office-bearers. In the first epistle to Timothy, Paul 
gives directions about the necessary qualifications of 
the same office-bearers, and he speaks of no others. 
The Kev. Herbert Thorndike, a learned divine of the 
Church of England, who flourished in the reign of 
Charles I., says of the apostle Paul, that " neither in 
the relation of his planting and ordering the churches, 
nor in the style of his epistles, nor in his instructions 
concerning ministers of these churches, is there any 
remembrance or respect to be found but of presbyters 
[identified in Scripture with bishops] and deacons." * 
Here, then, is a great and palpable fact : the pri- 
mitive churches had stated functionaries, readily dis- 
tinguishable from extraordinary office-bearers wielding 

* Government of Churches. Cambridge, 1641.— The words 
presbyter and bishop denote the same class in Scripture. In mo- 
dern works they are sometimes called " presbyter-bishops," to 
distinguish them from the " diocesan bishops " of our existing 
episcopal churches. The word elder is a translation of presbyter. 
Let the reader then keep in mind that bishop, presbyter, elder, 
are three expressions for one class of office-bearers. The truth 
of this statement will be made apparent afterwards. 



26 



INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS . 



a preternatural and temporary sway. To this extent 
we can, and therefore should, be followers of them 
who were the immediate followers of Christ. We 
cannot have apostles ; but we may have presbyters — 
we may have deacons ; and we act dutifully in seeking 
the closest attainable assimilation to the churches of 
the apostolic age. " All Christians," says an eloquent 
writer, "are under a solemn obligation to follow the 
ascertained universal practice of the primitive churches, 
founded and regulated by Christ's commissioned ser- 
vants, the apostles. Paul manifests much solicitude 
upon the subject, and most solemnly enjoins upon 
the churches adherence to all his injunctions.* Nor 
is he sparing of approbation where obedience has 
been implicit: 6 1 praise you, brethren, that ye re- 
member me in all things, and keep tlie ordinances, as I 
delivered them to you/f Nor is he less prompt in 
his reprobation of novelties and innovations : ' If 
any man seem to be contentious, we have no such 
custom, neither the churches of God.';j; The doc- 
trine of these Scriptures unquestionably is, that one 
general practice prevailed at the beginning, and that 
churches were not permitted to deviate from that 
practice." § 

If any particular rite or agency were mentioned in 
connection with only one church, or a few churches, 
we might suppose that it originated in peculiar cir- 
cumstances, and had no claims on adoption beyond 
the bounds of a local propriety. On this ground, 

* 2 Thess. ii. 15. f 1 Cor. xi. 2. £ 1 Cor. xi. 16. 
§ Campbell's Church Fellowship, p. 12. 



INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 



27 



Dr Wardlaw maintains that we are justifiable in 
dispensing with deaconesses. " There were no 
deaconesses," he says, " in the first church — the model 
church, that of Jerusalem. Although the class of 
persons of whom the neglect complained of occasioned 
the institution of the office was a description of 
females, those appointed there to hold it were men — 
seven men of honest report. The evidence of the 
existence of deaconesses afterwards, in any of the 
other churches, is so exceedingly scanty as to make 
it matter of surprise that it should have been so 
generally assumed. There is one passage only, and 
that a merely incidental one, that at all bears upon it, 
and that passage is Eom. xvi. 1. . . . If in any 
case females were installed in office, it was where the 
customs of society did not admit of such easy freedom 
of intercourse between the sexes, as existed among 
the Hebrews, and exists among ourselve's." * 

The same writer offers proof, in another part of his 
work, that like observations are applicable to a com- 
munity of goods — to the kiss of charity — to the 
washing of the disciples' feet, and to love feasts. 
All these usages, he contends, have been magnified 
beyond their reality, and were, besides, limited to 
particular spots or districts, and cannot be justly 
said to have prevailed in the primitive churches. 

But a different character attaches to any constituent 
of primitive order which can be shown to have be- 
longed to the churches generally. Of these churches, 
some were in towns, others in the country; some 
* Cong. Indep., pp. 146, 147. 



28 



INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 



in barbarous regions, others in states highly civilised. 
The churches of different localities presented, in fact, 
as much diversity of external condition as can well 
pertain to churches of different ages. In vain, then, 
should we argue that we may institute other rites and 
ceremonies under other circumstances, since the plea of 
dissimilar circumstances existed from the first, and was 
overruled by apostolic authority. An argument from 
convenience, which would discharge us from the per- 
manent retention of an ordinance, would have dis- 
charged the primitive churches from its universal 
adoption. And when we omit all consideration of 
miraculous functions and endowments, as neither re- 
coverable nor imitable, we are safe in laying down 
this rule— That we shoidd adopt every associating and 
assimilating feature of identity in the primitive churches, 
which they allowed no casualties and no vicissitudes to 
molest ; and "should be careful to hold that in common 
with them which they held in common ivith one another. 



PART II. 



ON DEACONS. 
CHAPTER I. 

That the primitive churches had deacons, universally admitted 
— Proofs of the existence of this order in the apostolic age 
— The special nature of their office disputed — Paul's 
Epistles do not indicate their peculiar functions — The 
seven spoken of in Acts chap. vi. are not called deacons— 
That the seven, however, were deacons, and that their 
charge shows the character of the deacon's work, may be 
inferred from the manner of their appointment ; from the 
language used respecting them ; from the qualifications re- 
quired of deacons ; and from historical testimony. 

It is universally admitted that the primitive churches 
had a class of office-bearers called deacons. Explicit 
mention is made of them in the epistles of Paul, and 
in the writings of the early Christian fathers. The 
epistle to the Philippians commences thus : " Paul 
and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all 
the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with 
the bishops and deacons." From these words we na- 
turally infer that the deacons were a stated order of 
functionaries, equally as the bishops, with whom they 
are here associated and addressed. After describing, 
in the first epistle to Timothy, the qualifications needful 



30 



ON DEACONS. 



in a bishop, Paul says : " Likewise must the deacons 
be grave, not double tongued, not given to much wine, 
not greedy of filthy lucre; holding the mystery of the 
faith in a pure conscience. And let these also first be 
proved ; then let them use the office of a deacon, being 
found blameless. Even so must their wives be grave, 
not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. Let the 
deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their chil-* 
dren and their own houses well. For they that have 
used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves 
a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which 
is in Christ Jesus."* It will be observed that the 
apostle does not in these verses speak problematically 
of the existence of deacons. He does not say that if 
they are appointed, or where they are appointed, they 
should have the endowments and character which he 
describes. He takes for granted their appointment 
as equally indispensable and undoubted with that of 
bishops, of whom he had spoken previously. The last 
verse of the passage above cited, " They that have 
used the office of a deacon well purchase to them- 
selves a good degree, and great boldness in the 
faith which is in Christ Jesus," is evidently a compre- 
hensive proposition applicable to churches generally, 
and not to any one church exclusively. Deacons 
are not alluded to expressly under that title in any 
other part of the New Testament. But these pas- 
sages are clear in their import ; and they leave no 
room for reasonable doubt that the institution of 
deacons both existed and prevailed in the primitive 
* 1 Tim. iii. 8-13. 



ON DEACONS. 



31 



churches. If we pass from inspired to uninspired 
writings, we find ecclesiastical history abounding in 
evidence to the same effect. 

But what was the special work of the deacons? 
Here opinion becomes divided. The passages which 
have been quoted from the epistles of Paul teach us 
that churches should have deacons, and that deacons 
should be men of high Christian character. But they 
do not inform us what specific duties the deacons are 
to perform. Can we not learn their distinctive em- 
ployment elsewhere? It has been generally supposed 
that light is thrown on this subject by the following 
verses : " And in those days, when the number of the 
disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring 
of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their 
widows were neglected in the daily ministration. 
Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples 
unto them, and said, It is not reason that w r e should 
leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, 
brethren, look you out among you seven men of honest 
report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we 
may appoint over this business. But we will give 
ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of 
the word. And the saying pleased the whole multi- 
tude : and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and 
of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and 
Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicholas a 
proselyte of Antioch; whom they set before the 
apostles : and when they had prayed, they laid their 
hands on them."* The Hebrews mentioned in the first 
* Acts vi. 1-6. 



32 



ON DEACONS, 



verse were Jews who spoke the Hebrew language, 
while the Grecians were mostly foreign Jews, or 
proselytes, who had come from countries where the 
Greek language was in more general use. A misun- 
derstanding had arisen between these sections of Israel, 
in consequence of the foreign Jews imagining, with 
or without reason, that their poor widows were not 
equally provided for as those of their Hebrew brethren. 
The apostles declared that they could not, consistently 
with a faithful discharge of other duties, conduct this 
business, when it had become so involved in misap- 
prehension and strife (whether they had done so 
before or not), and therefore they gave directions for 
the election of persons, having suitable qualifications 
and character, to whom it should be given in charge. 
So far the meaning of the passage is obvious. But 
the question now arises, whether the seven of whom 
it speaks were deacons ? 

" The seven/' says Archbishop Whately, " are no- 
where in Scripture designated by this title [of deacons.] 
They are referred to, in Acts xxi. 8, not as the ' seven 
deacons/ but simply as the seven. And the primary 
and especial office for which they were appointed — 
that of stewards and almoners — is not referred to at 
all in what Paul says of the office of a deacon. Hence, 
some have inferred that the seven persons mentioned 
in Acts were appointed to a temporary office for a 
temporary and local emergency." * Several writers 
have lately advocated the view which Archbishop 
Whately here notices, and have contended with much 
* Kingdom of Christ, p. ] 24. Note. 



ON DEACONS. 



33 



ingenuity that the seven were not deacons; and that 
their appointment, consequently, gives us no insight 
into the deacon's duties. On this hypothesis, the 
deacons mentioned by Paul may have been spiritual 
officers, and had no such pecuniary trust as the seven 
were elected and ordained to discharge. 

I shall state as briefly as possible my reasons for 
believing, after a careful examination of the proof 
offered to the contrary, that the seven were deacons ; 
and that the serving of tables is the proper work of 
the deaconship. 

1st, The supposition adverted to by Archbishop 
Whately, of the seven having been appointed to a 
temporary office, for a temporary and local emer- 
gency, does not appear very accordant with the mode 
of their appointment . The choice and ordination of 
them were conducted with a solemnity, and have 
been recorded with a particularity, not adequately 
accounted for by transient adjustments, but which 
appear perfectly reasonable, if we recognise in the 
transactions the origination of a general and abiding 
institution. 

2d, The language used by Luke, in speaking of the 
seven, favours the belief that they were deacons. He 
does not indeed expressly call them by that name, 
but he represents them as appointed (d/axovs/V) to 
deaconise in respect to tables, if I may coin a word 
for the sake of literal translation ; and when we after- 
wards read of deacons in the epistles of Paul, we 
are led by the use of the cognate terms to think of 
the same class of functionaries and the same species 

c 



34 



ON DEACONS. 



of ministration. This is not a conclusive argument 
on the question at issue, but it creates a presumption 
in favour of the view which I defend. 

This presumption is the stronger, when the verb 
(dioMovsca, diaconeo) used in relation to the seven, is 
observed to have respect very generally to pecuniary 
trust or allied service. It occurs thirty-three times 
in the New Testament ; and I find that in two-thirds 
of the whole, its application to such occupation as 
may be fitly called a serving of tables, is evident and 
unquestionable ; while, in some of the remaining ex- 
amples, it also admits, without demanding, this in- 
terpretation. Does not this use of the verb so 
general, and so marked, dispose us to find a like 
meaning in the cognate substantive officially appro- 
priated ? 

We are reminded, however, that Paul speaks of 
going to Jerusalem to act as a deacon to the saints ; 
that he tells us of his deaconship for Jerusalem ; that 
the Hebrews, in the epistle addressed to them, are 
commended indiscriminately, in that they had acted, 
and did act, as deacons unto the saints.* 

These, and such passages, prove, I acknowledge, 
that the verb used by Luke in the Acts, and the 
cognate substantive employed by Paul in his epistles, 
do not, by their sameness of etymology, unquestion- 
ably identify the seven, and deacons. But these 
citations, so far from annulling, strengthen the pre- 
sumption, for which alone I plead, in behalf of that 
conclusion. When Paul speaks of himself and others 
* See Rom. xv. 25, 31; Heb. vi. 10. 



OX DEACONS. 



35 



deaconising, in respect to the relief of the distressed, 
it is by no means evident, because he and his com- 
panions were not, strictly speaking, deacons, that he 
has no allusion to the deacon's office. It is more 
natural to understand that the deacon's office and 
its eleemosynary functions are presupposed in such 
language. This point may be illustrated by analo- 
gous phraseology. Saints are said to reign, and to 
offer sacrifices, though they have not actually regal 
or sacerdotal functions. Still, in such language, 
there is a reference to office, and to its characteristic 
engagements. There is allusion to the offices of 
kings and priests ; and believers are declared to be 
these functionaries, under certain aspects, and in re- 
lation to certain engagements. So they who are said 
to deaconise, though not necessarily averred to be 
literally deacons, may be thus exhibited as exemplify- 
ing the deacon in relation to the matters spoken of. 
If Paul had been said to go to Jerusalem diaxovoov, 
doing the deacon's work, and we had known nothing 
of the object of his visit, we might have supposed that 
the language was descriptive simply of apostolic or 
spiritual labours. But he went bearing a collection 
for the poor saints; and when in fulfilling this ser- 
vice he executed the deacon's functions, is not the 
inference strong that the business of deacons was to 
do what he did ? He acted the deacon — how ? By 
conveying alms to the poor. 

But the presumption, it may be said, that Luke, in 
the sixth chapter of the Acts, uses the verb, instead of 
the substantive, cannot be very strong, unless we find 



36 



ON DEACONS. 



the same substitution made on other occasions. That 
is what we do find, and find, too, oftener than once. 
The verb is twice employed in the first epistle to 
Timothy, as I suppose it to be in the Acts, in lieu of 
the substantive. When Paul says, " Let them use the 
office of a deacon ; " * and again, " They that have 
used the office of a deacon well," f he employs the 
identical word which occurs in the phrase, " It is not . 
meet that we serve tables " J — that we use the office 
of deacon in respect to tables. Surely, then, we 
are not rash in believing, till contrary evidence is 
furnished, that the common meaning of the verb 
Biaxovsu (diaconeo) has entered into the official de- 
signation diaxovog, (diaconos,) deacon ; and that the 
verb is actually used for the substantive in the 6th 
chapter of the Acts, as we find it to be unquestion- 
ably a first and a second time in the first epistle to 
Timothy. 

3J, Though Paul gives us no statement of the 
duties of deacons, he specifies, in the first epistle to 
Timothy, the qualifications which they needed ; and 
among these qualifications there is none that has par- 
ticular relation either to teaching or ruling, and none 
that would not be of manifest value to ecclesiastical 
almoners. It is true that the deacon is required to 

* 1 Tim. iii. 10. f Ver. 13. 

f Let the reader compare these passages : — Acts vi. 2 t Ouk 

upicrrov lo-rtv rifta; .... ^ictxovzTv rpa^i^ai;. 1 Tim. iii. 10, 
Koti oiroi Ti ^oxt/^cc^itr^coffctv -rpurov, lira, ^ia,3conircoffa.v. And 
13, — 0/ yotp KaXus ^taxovyircivris ficifaov IccvroTs xaXov vrtgt- 
vroiouvrcu. 



ON DEACONS. 



37 



be a man " holding the mystery of the faith in a pure 
conscience." * If we understand these words to mean 
that he should be conscientiously orthodox, still there 
is no necessary connection between orthodoxy and 
public instruction or government. A deacon dispens- 
ing the bounty of the church could not fail to be a 
person of influence, and also to come much into com- 
munication with fellow-worshippers ; and it was 
greatly to be deprecated that such a functionary 
should be of erroneous or questionable opinions, 
when he could so easily pervert the power insepa- 
rable from his station to the disparagement of truth, 
or the propagation of heresies. An appointment of 
this description was the more to be dreaded, when, 
as all great authorities on Christian antiquities ac- 
knowledge, the members of the churches exercised 
so much liberty in exhorting one another. 

4:th, That the seven mentioned in the Acts were 
deacons, appears from historical testimony. An appeal 
must here be made to the Fathers. That many ob- 
jectionable notions are to be found in their writings, 
I readily allow. But even if we attach no weight 
whatever to their speculative opinions, we may give 
some consideration to their earlier and fuller know- 
ledge regarding a matter of fact. It is essentially a 
matter of fact we are now seeking to determine, viz., 
whether the appointment of the seven originated the 
order of deacons. The Fathers may give us, and do 
give us, strange views about the duties of the deacon- 
ship, as about other things. But if they help us in 
* 1 Tim. iii. 9. 



38 



ON DEACONS. 



determining the fact that the seven were deacons, we 
shall go to Scripture itself to learn their obligations. 

Coleman says: — "It is particularly important to 
remark that the word dia%onu [diaconeo] has in many 
passages reference to an office in the church in- 
stituted by the apostles ; and that the appellation of 
diazovog, deacon, denotes one whose duty it is to 
receive the charities of the church, and to distribute 

their alms An explicit account of the first 

appointment of a deacon in the church at Jerusalem 

is given in Acts vi. 1-7 It was their duty to 

receive and disburse the charities of the church. In 
the discharge of these duties they were styled the 
mouth, and the heart, or soul of the bishop. In this 
sense they were accounted the indispensable assistants 
of the bishop, without whom he could do nothing. 
Their duties increased with the possessions of the 
church, so that they acted essentially as the account- 
ants and clerks of the bishop."* 

Here Coleman, speaking in the name of history, 
alleges that the seven mentioned in the Acts were 
deacons in the official sense of the term, and that the 
deacons spoken of in the Epistles were a continua- 
tion of the same order. In a work more recently 
published, the same author says, — "Besides the 
elders, there was, in the apostical and primitive ages 
of the church, only one other office, that of deacon. 
The specific duty to which the deacons were ori- 
ginally appointed was to assist in the distribution of 
alms. The care of providing for the poor, the sick, 
* Antiq., chap, iii., sec. x. 



ON DEACONS. 



39 



and of bestowing other needful attentions upon the 
members of the community, for the relief of those 
who were occupied with the duties of the ministry, 
devolved upon them. They also, in common with 
the other officers of the church, laboured in the word 
and baptised ; so, at least, it is related of two of the 
seven deacons at Jerusalem, Stephen and Philip. — 
(Acts vi., vii., viii.)"* Here we are referred to Acts 
vi. for an account of deacons ; and while they are 
represented as discharging other functions, we are 
told that the specific duty to which they were ori- 
ginally appointed was to assist in the distribution of 
alms. 

In the clear understanding that the seven were 
deacons, some of the early churches adhered to the 
precise number seven in their diaconal staff, aiming 
at a perfect conformity to apostolic example, and rigid 
fulfilment of a divine appointment. The learned 
Bingham says indeed that " the number of deacons 
usually increased with the necessities of the church, 
and the Church of Borne was singular in the con- 
trary practice/' f But the word "singular" is not 
there to be taken absolutely, for Bingham says in the 
same paragraph that "in some churches they were 
very precise to the number seven, in imitation of the 
first church of Jerusalem. The Council of Neocsesarea 
enacted it into a canon that there ought to be but 
seven deacons in any city, though it was never so 

* Ancient Christianity 'Exemplified, &c, chap, vi., sect, vii., 
£ 6. Philadelphia, 1852. 
+ Antiq., b. L, chap, xx., sect. 19. 



40 



ON DEACONS. 



great, because this was according to the rule sug- 
gested in the Acts of the Apostles.'"' 

Amid the multiplicity of engagements which came 
to be assigned to deacons, the original duty of serving 
tables everywhere maintained its place ; and the uni- 
versality of this usage strongly indicates its high 
antiquity and divine origin. They were employed 
not only in dispensing supplies from the table of the 
poor, but also in conveying the symbols from the table 
of the Lord, as if all tables, having any connection 
with the church, came within their administration. 
" It belonged to them," says Bingham, " to take care 
of the holy table, and all the ornaments and utensils 

appertaining thereto It was appropriate to them 

to assist the bishops or presbyters in the administra- 
tion of the eucharist, where their business was to dis- 
tribute the elements to the people that were present, 
and carry them to those that were absent also, as 
Justin Martyr acquaints us in his second apology." * 
Since the church showed a disposition to multiply 
the functions of deacons, it was against the current of 
the times to found the validity of the office on a pas- , 
sage in the Acts, which gave no countenance to these 
many inventions ; and we cannot understand why 
parties, introducing deacons so different from the 
seven, should yet have acknowledged the seven to be 
the model deacons, unless under the pressure of his- 
torical evidence, which, with better and fuller means 
of information than we possess, they felt to be irresis- 
tible. 

* Antiq., b. i., chap, xx., sect. 4. 



ON DEACONS. 



41 



Bingham, in treating of deacons, cites many pas- 
sages, " to show the sense of antiquity concerning 
their original." By his quotations he seeks to prove 
two things ; first, that the seven were deacons, and, 
as such, charged with the service of tables ; and, 
secondly, that in the judgment of ancient writers, the 
serving of tables was not the only work of deacons. 
His authorities are unanimous as to the former pro- 
position identifying the seven and deacons. 

He tells us that "Ignatius styles them (deacons) 
expressly ministers of the mysteries of Christ, adding 
that they are not ministers of meats and drinks, but 
of the church of God."* The meaning of this asser- 
tion he justly understands to be that deacons were not 
ministers of meats and drinks only. The language 
implies that deacons had such an appointment as might 
tempt people to think that they had to do exclusively 
with meats and drinks. And this very special con- 
nection of their office with meats and drinks, points 
clearly enough to the serving of tables ; for to serve a 
table, and serve the meats and drinks placed on it, 
marks a distinction without a difference. Ignatius, 
then, in speaking of deacons, had in view the sixth 
chapter of the Acts, as in part, at least, explanatory 
of their functions. 

" Cyprian speaks of them," says Bingham, " in the 

* The learned author does not give the words of the original, 

which are these : — As? £s xou rovs ^ioczovou;, ovrocs /aucrrypjcov. 
1. Xc<r/., xot.ru. wa.vru, rpotfov vretffiv apiffxitv. Ov yap (ZpwfioiToov 
nod tforwv ilfftv ^ikkovoi a,XXa,\xx.Xyi(rta.$ ®tou vtfYipirai, — Epist. ad 

Trail, chap. ii. 



42 



ON DEACONS. 



same style, calling them ministers of episcopacy and the 
church, withal referring their original to the place in 
the Acts of the Apostles, which the Council of Trullo 
disputes about." The author does not give us the 
words of Cyprian, but he refers us at the foot of the 
page to the 68th epistle of that Father, and in that 
epistle this passage is to be found : " We perceive 
that the apostles observed this public appointment, not 
only in the ordination of bishops and priests, but also 
of deacons, regarding which also it is written in their 
Acts: 'And the twelve called together the whole mul- 
titudes of the disciples, and said to them,'" &e.* Here 
the original appointment of deacons is traced to Acts 
vi. in the most unequivocal manner. Jerome, we are 
informed by Bingham, " sometimes in an angry hu- 
mour speaks a little contemptuously of them [deacons], 
styling them ministers of widows and tables." It is 
manifest that Jerome, in so characterising deacons, 
refers to their original appointment, as recorded in the 
sixth chapter of the Acts, the very language of which 
he quotes. 

" The Apostolic Constitutions," as quoted by Bing- 
ham, " represent the bishop, when ordaining a deacon, 
as praying that God would make his face to shine 
upon that his servant, who was then chosen to the 

* The words of the original are : — " Coram omni synagoga 

jubet Deus Constitui sacerdotem id est, &c Nee hoc in 

episcoporum tantum et sacerdotnm sed et in Diaconorum 
ordinationibus observasse apostolos animadvertimus de quo et 
ipso in Actis eorum scriptum est, ' Et convocarunt illi duodecim 
totam plebem discipulorum et dixerunt iis,' " &c. 



ON DEACONS. 



43 



office of deacon, and fill him with his Holy Spirit 
and power, as he did Stephen the Martyr." The 
aptness of this allusion to Stephen — one of the seven 
— in the ordination of deacons, wholly depends on 
the supposition that he was a deacon, and endowed 
as such with the power and Spirit now asked for 
other deacons. 

Dr Miller, in his work on the Eldership, produces 
other quotations from Christian Fathers not less deci- 
sive of the point at issue — that in the judgment of 
Christian antiquity the seven mentioned by Luke were 
deacons equally as those to whom Paul expressly 
assigns that designation. The proof might be inde- 
finitely enlarged. I do not observe in either of these 
writers, or remember to have seen elsewhere, the fol- 
lowing passage of Cyril. In his Lectures, as published 
at Oxford, 1839, he has this sentence : 66 Nor in 
the twelve apostles only wrought the grace of the 
Holy Ghost, but also on the first-born children of this 
once barren church, I mean the seven deacons ; for 
these also were chosen, as it is written, being full of 
the Holy Ghost."* 

It has been already mentioned that one object con- 
templated by Bingham, in his citations regarding 
deacons, is to prove the propriety of assigning them, 
along with the serving of tables, other important 
duties. By his own admission, antiquity is not here 
altogether in his favour. He acknowledges that the 
Council of Trullo, which was held in the sixth century, 
denied to deacons any other character than that of 
* Page 233. 



44 



ON DEACONS. 



stewards or almoners, "asserting that the seven 
deacons spoken of in the Acts are not to be under- 
stood of such as ministered in divine service or the 
sacred mysteries, but only of such as served tables 
and attended the poor." As reported by Bingham, 
the Council of Trullo maintained that the seven were 
deacons ; that these deacons only served tables and 
attended the poor ; and that the deacons of subse- 
quent times were exceeding the scriptural institution 
of the office in fulfilling other functions. If we 
consult Scripture on the subject, it appears that the 
seven were expressly " set over this matter/' and not 
any other. They were required, indeed, to be full of 
the Holy Ghost and of wisdom ; and some think that 
such language surely pointed to a higher vocation than 
the distribution of money. But though we should 
explain the phrase, " full of the Holy Ghost," as re- 
ferring to preternatural endowments, who could say, 
that in an age when these were abundant, they might 
not be expected with special propriety in a stated 
order of officers ? How is it certain that such a gift as 
the discernment of spirits might not be peculiarly 
called for at times to sift the pretensions of claimants 
for relief or the spurious generosity of some Ananias 
or Sapphira ? Preternatural endowments, then, might 
be very valuable to the custodiers of the church's funds 
and the dispensers of its charities. The probability, 
however, is, whether the seven were preternaturally 
endowed or not, that no allusion is made to such 
qualifications in the phraseology we are considering. 
Neander tells us that the word Holy appears to be a 



ON DEACONS. 



45 



gloss ; and that the word Spirit, which is " the true 
reading, denotes that inspiration for the cause of the 
gospel which is requisite for every kind of exertion 
for the kingdom of God."* 

Other attempts to get additional work for deacons 
in the Scriptures are not more successful. Stephen 
spoke in his own defence ; and who may not when he 
is unjustly accused ? Philip preached. We do not, 
however, require to suppose that he did so as a 
deacon, when we are informed that he was an 
" evangelist." But the amount of a deacon's duties is 
not the main point now treated of. We have been 
adducing the testimony of the Fathers specifically to 
the fact that the seven appointed to serve tables 
were deacons, though in the sixth chapter of the 
Acts they are not expressly so called. 

The concurrent understanding of the church, in 
the times of Ignatius, Cyprian, the author of the Con- 
stitutions, Jerome, Cyril, the Council of Neocaesarea, 
&c, undoubtedly was, that the seven mentioned by 
Luke were deacons, and were of the same order with 
the deacons mentioned by Paul. There is no testi- 
mony that can be called opposing. The prevalent 
belief does not appear to have elicited any protest, or 
to have occasioned any controversy. In fact, it is a 
novelty of modern times to dispute whether the seven 
were deacons. And still the position is disputed by 
few. " The current opinion," says Dr Miller, " of all 
the most learned and judicious Christian divines of all 
denominations, for several centuries past, is decisively 
* Hist, of the Planting, &c, vol. i. p. 39. 



46 



ON DEACONS. 



in favour of considering the passage in Acts vi. as 
recording the first appointment of the New Testa- 
ment deacons. Among all classes of theologians, 
Catholic and Protestant, Lutheran and Calvinistic, 
Presbyterian and Episcopal, this concurrence of 
opinion approaches so near to unanimity, that we 
may, without injustice to any other opinion, consider 
it as the deliberate and harmonious judgment of the 
Christian church/' * 

In these views Neander concurs. He says, in one 
of his works, " It would be wrong to deny that the 
later church office of this name developed itself from 
the first, and might be traced back to it. Although, 
as is usual in such affairs, when the ecclesiastical sys- 
tem became more complex, many changes took place 
in the office of deacons ; for example, the original sole 
appointment of deacons for the distribution of alms, 
became afterwards subordinate to the influence of 
the presbyters, who assumed the whole management 
of church affairs ; f and though many other secular 
employments were added to the original one, yet the 
fundamental principle [the relief of the poor], as well 
* On the Ruling Elder, chap. x. 

t On the subordination of deacons to presbyters in the recep- 
tion and disbursement of funds, Neander says, " From Acts xi. 
30, nothing more is to be inferred than that when presbyters 
were appointed for the general superintendence of the church, 
the contributions intended for the church were handed ov.er 
to them, as formerly to the apostles, when they held the 
exclusive management of affairs. It may be fairly supposed 
that the presbyters entrusted each of the deacons with a sum 
out of the common fund for distribution in his own depart- 
ment." 



ON DEACONS. 



47 



as the name of the office, remained. In later times 
we still find traces of the distribution of alms being 
considered as the peculiar employment of deacons." * 
A full view, then, of the scriptural records, of ancient 
notices, and of monumental usages, will probably- 
secure in time coming, as in times past, very common 
assent to the conclusion, that the seven were deacons, 
and that their appointment to serve tables instructs us 
in the nature of the deacon's duties. 



CHAPTER II. 

The deaconship of the seven derives confirmation from the 
consequences of controverting this position. 

Disinclined to protract discussion on a subject which 
to some readers may have no special interest, I shall 
reserve the consideration of some objections to the 
views which have been advanced, for a note at the 
close of this volume, and shall here only glance at the 
consequences of controverting the position that the 
seven were deacons. 

On this supposition we have, as the epistle to the 
Philippians and the first epistle to Timothy show, a 
stated order of functionaries in the primitive church, 
which is our model, but, without Acts vi., no index 
to their characteristic employments. And when we 
shall have appointed deacons, in due regard to the 
* Hist, of the Planting, &c, pp. 39, 40. 



48 



ON DEACONS. 



apostolic pattern, we are left wholly uninformed what 
these office-bearers are to do ! There is, I confess, no 
formal statement of the duties of elders ; but then we 
have unequivocal intimations about their teaching 
and ruling. For deacons we have, when the seven 
are denied to have been such, nothing of the kind — 
no hint whatever as to their functions. To no pur- 
pose is it here said that with the mode of instruction 
we have no right to quarrel ; and that God may reveal 
his will as it pleases him, by words or facts, systema- 
tically or incidentally. This is true ; but to insist on 
this truth is nothing to the present purpose. If the 
seven were not deacons, and the serving of tables be 
not the deacon's work, then every avenue to know- 
ledge is here shut — the oracles of God are absolutely 
dumb ; and I submit that a divine warrant for an 
office, without divine announcement of any kind about 
its engagements, is a case without an explanation 
and without a parallel. 

Suppose that we take tradition for our rule, where 
we have no better directory, and elect deacons to be 
" adjutants to bishops," what adjutantship is to be 
given? How are superintendence and subordination 
to be meted out between the helping and the helped ; 
and where, in churches having elders, shall we find 
other men to take the duties of elders subordinately, 
while denied the office itself with its encouragements 
and honours ? 

It may be said that our Presbyterian churches 
have in effect such adjutants now, and that we may 
recognise them in missionary collectors, Sabbath- 



ON DEACONS. 



49 



school teachers, &c. &c. But these undefined, mul- 
tiform, and ever changing agencies, cannot for a 
moment be mistaken for an order of deacons, equally 
specific as an order of elders, and jointly mentioned 
with them in the Epistles of Paul. Under the vague 
title of adjutants to' bishops, we may institute al- 
most any order of functionaries, and give almost 
any powers we please, and wander ever so widely 
from apostolic precedents, till our traditionary lamp 
prove no better than the meteoric light arising from 
swamps, and seducing us into their mire. I prefer 
the persuasion that the seven were deacons, as fur- 
nishing a solution of the main difficulties — a solution 
which is reasonable in itself, accordant with Scrip- 
ture, confirmed by history, and happily exempted 
from these distressing consequences. 



CHAPTER HI. 

The scriptural model of Deacons has not been closely adhered 
to by Episcopalians, Independents, or Presbyterians. 

If we bring the principles which have been stated 
and defended in the foregoing pages to bear on 
existing facts, we do not find much adherence, in 
this province, to the primitive model. It is the doc- 
trine of Episcopacy, that there are three orders of 
clergy, bishops, presbyters, and deacons — the last 
named being the lowest. Certainly, the sixth ehap- 

D 



50 



ON BEACONS. 



ter of the Acts would never suggest this spiritual 
office as appropriate for deacons, or give us at all the 
idea that they are to be accounted ministers of the 
Word. When they are constituted clergymen of 
the third degree, they must be invested with distinc- 
tive clerical duties, about which Scripture gives no 
direction. They are allowed in England to baptize, 
to read in the church, and to assist at the celebration 
of the eucharist. They are not eligible to ecclesias- 
tical promotion, but they may be chaplains to fami- 
lies, curates to beneficed clergymen, or lecturers to 
parish churches. The serving of tables, or oversight 
of the poor, is no longer in their hands, but has been 
transferred to church-wardens, annually elected in 
each parish by the vestry. The power which can 
so far fashion ecclesiastical office may consistently 
introduce other modifications ; and the Church of 
England, besides deacons, has archdeacons. The 
archdeacon ranks next to the bishop ; sways a kind 
of episcopal authority, once derived from the bishop, 
but now distinct and independent ; holds his court, 
and punishes offences. But though archdeacons were 
originally of the order of deacons, the functionaries 
so called are in these days chosen from the order of 
presbyters ; so that they have the title of one order, 
and the office of another. The church also created 
for itself an order of subdeacons. In times more 
ancient they were a sort of ecclesiastical porters and 
door-keepers, and by the Council of Laodicea were 
forbidden to sit in the presence of a deacon without 
his leave. In the Roman Catholic Church the duties 



ON DEACONS. 



51 



of a deacon are very multifarious. He perfumes 
with incense the officiating clergyman and the choir ; 
lays the corporal on the altar ; transfers the patten, 
or cup, from the subdeacon to the officiating prelate ; 
and the pix from the officiating prelate to the sub- 
deacon — -'and many such like things he does. Such 
ceremonies appear to us very idle ; but where is the 
principle that will condemn them and justify the 
complex clerical deaconship of Anglican Episcopacy ? 

Independent churches have deacons. But their 
occupation is not limited to the serving of tables. 
" Among Congregationalists," says Dr Henderson, 
" the deacons, besides attending to the temporal 
concerns of the church, assist the minister with their 
advice ; take the lead at prayer-meetings when he is 
absent ; and preach occasionally to smaller congre- 
gations in the contiguous villages." * ' "It is true," 
says Mr James, " that by the usages of our churches, 
many things have been added to the duties of the office 
[of deacon] beyond its original design ; but this is 
mere matter of expediency"! "A multitude of 
duties," says Dr Campbell, " connected with the wor- 
ship and the house of God, have been attached to 
the office as a matter of convenience and utility. 
This scheme is without any express Scripture autho- 
rity; and we think that the Scriptures permit, if 
they do not require, an arrangement somewhat dif- 
ferent." I 

* See Buck's Dictionary, byDr Henderson. Art. " Deacons." 
f Christian Fellowship, p. 130. 
$ Church Fellowship, p. 60. 



52 



ON DEACONS. 



Such Independent deacons are in effect Presby- 
terian elders ; under all the disadvantages, however, 
of performing duties to which they have not been 
appointed, while they are in danger of omitting much 
of the elder's work when it has not been expressly 
given them in charge, and of carrying undefined 
and usurped power to despotic excesses. This con- 
dition of the deaconship too easily explains those 
abuses of the office which Mr James, Dr Campbell, 
and other Independent writers, impressively deplore. 

I am not here in a condition to justify the general 
usage of Presbyterian churches ; and I will not at- 
tempt to underestimate or excuse what seems to me 
their common departure from apostolic precedent. 

The Free Church of Scotland deserves honourable 
mention for reviving this institution in a scriptural 
form within its pale. In some points its system of 
deaconship may admit of amendment, and special care 
may be needed that " deacons' courts " do not ex- 
ceed their legitimate functions, and create troubles. 
Eut the plan in its great features exhibits an honest 
and praiseworthy effort to set up a Christian office as 
it was at the beginning ; and I am assured that with 
few exceptions the measure is working peacefully and 
beneficially. 

In former times the Scottish Establishment had 
also this class of office-bearers. Their office is cha- 
racterised in the Second Book of Discipline as " an 
ordinary and perpetual function in the kirk of 
Christ and they are retained in some of its churches. 
The United Presbyterian Church of Scotland, of 



ON DEACONS. 



53 



which I have the happiness of being a minister, per- 
mits the appointment of them when they are approved 
of ; but it has not embodied in its constitution the 
principle that the deacon (charged with the serving 
of tables) is a divinely instituted office ; and the num- 
ber of its churches provided with such office-bearers 
is comparatively small. In most Presbyterian deno- 
minations throughout Great Britain, Ireland, and 
America, such deacons are generally dispensed with ; 
and the charge of ecclesiastical funds is divided be- 
tween elders and managers, or allied agencies. 

I am aware that specious statements can be made in 
defence of this procedure. It can be urged, that even 
the apostles took charge, for a time, of eleemosynary 
funds, and did not resign the trust till they were con- 
strained to do so, by an exigency which exists no 
longer. Are not elders, then, imitating apostolic pre- 
cedent, when they retain this stewardship as long as 
they find it manageable ? If disinterested zeal were 
to cast as much into the church's treasury as in pri- 
mitive times, or if persecution were to render as many 
dependent on Christian bounty, then there might be 
need to recall the deacon's office ; but why adopt, in 
common times, an uncommon expedient? No doubt, if 
the elders were burdened by monetary affairs, it would 
be proper to relieve them ; but the serving of the poor 
requires little time ; and as for transactions more 
strictly secular, they are disposed of by managers or 
trustees appointed for the purpose. This, I think, is 
the amount of all that can be pleaded for the non- 
appointment of deacons in any of our congregations ; 



54 



ON DEACONS. 



and whether it be satisfactory to the reader or not, 
I confess that it is not convincing to myself. It has 
already appeared that deacons were appointed, not 
only at Jerusalem, in a season of emergency, but in 
the churches generally, for an indefinite period. And 
we have no warrant to explain every example of the 
prevailing usage, by imagined peculiarities of time 
and place. Nor can it be safely averred that the want 
of deacons has been productive of no practical evils. 
It is greatly to be feared that many elders, from having 
a charge of the poor, think they have done enough 
when they have attended to this province ; and that 
the poor also have suffered from receiving half atten- 
tions, when they had a scriptural claim to a distinct 
and entire guardianship. As for managers, they are 
a class who have rendered valuable services to our 
churches ; but the nature of their commission is ano- 
malous, and it would be far better if the same indi- 
viduals were set apart to their functions by regular 
and solemn ordination. We should not then have the 
strange and unseemly phenomenon of secular appoint- 
ments in spiritual societies. All the vessels in our 
sanctuary would correspond with its sacredness, and 
exhibit, in legible characters, the inscription, " Holi- 
ness unto the Lord." 

" Whereas it is our duty/' says Dr Owen, " in all 
things to have regard to the authority of Christ and 
his appointments in the gospel, if we claim the privi- 
lege of being called after his name, some think that 
if what he hath appointed may be colourably per- 
formed another way without respect unto his institu- 



ON DEACONS. 



55 



tions, that is far the best. But omitting the practice 
of other men, the things that concern this office in the 
church, are, as we have said, clear in the Scripture. 

" First, The persons called unto it are to be of 
c honest report,' furnished with the gifts of the Holy- 
Ghost, especially with 6 wisdom.' — (Acts vi. 3.) And 
those other endowments useful in the discharge of 
their duty, mentioned 1 Tim. iii. 8. 

" Secondly, The way whereby they come to be made 
partakers of this office, is by the choice or election 
of the church (Acts vi. 2, 3, 5), whereupon they are 
solemnly to be set apart by prayer. 

" Thirdly, Their work or duty consists in a ' daily 
ministration unto the necessities of the poor saints/ 
or members of the church, ver. 1, 2. 

" Fourthly, To this end that they may be enabled 
so to do, it is ordained, that every 6 first day' the 
members of the church do contribute according as 
God enables them of their substance, for the supply 
of the wants of the poor. — (1 Cor. xvi. 2.) And also 
occasionally, as necessity shall require, or God move 
their hearts by his grace. 

" It belongs therefore unto persons called unto this 
office, 

" First, To acquaint themselves with the outward 
condition of those that appear to be poor and needy 
in the church, whether by the addresses of such poor 
ones, who are bound to make known their wants, 
occasions, and necessities unto them, or by the infor- 
mation of others, or their own observation. 



56 ON DEACONS. 

" Secondly, To acquaint the elders and the church, 
as occasion requireth, with the necessities of the 
poor under their care, that those who are able may- 
be stirred up by the elders to a free supply and 
contribution. 

" Thirdly, To dispose what they are entrusted with 
faithfully, cheerfully, tenderly, 6 without partiality/ 
or preferring one before another, for any outward 
respect whatever. 

" Fourthly, To keep and give an account unto the 
church when called for, of what they have received, 
and how they have disposed of it, that so they may 
be known to have well discharged their office ; that 
is, with care, wisdom, and tenderness, whereby they 
procure to themselves 6 a good degree, with boldness 
in the faith and the church is encouraged to 
entrust them farther with this sacrifice of their alms, 
which is so acceptable unto God." * 

This subject is engaging much attention at present 
in several Presbyterian denominations, and we may 
hope that the renewed consideration of it will tend 
to the removal of doubts and difficulties, and bring 
about a closer agreement between the primitive 
pattern and modern practice. 

* Worship of God by way of Question and Answer, Works, 
vol. xv., pp. 507, 508. I cite Owen's Works as published by 
the Messrs Johnstone & Hunter, ably edited by Dr Goold, 
and enriched by an elegant and interesting Memoir of Owen, 
by Dr Andrew Thomson, of Broughton Place Church, Edin- 
burgh. 



PART III. 



ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CHUECH 
BY PRESBYTERS. 

CHAPTER I. 

The primitive churches had Presbyters or Elders— Whether 
above these office-bearers there was an order of Prelates, 
to be afterwards considered — The power of Elders now 
viewed in relation to popular rights and Congregational 
principles— Acknowledgment due to Congregationalists — 
Dr Wardlaw's definition of Independent polity — Inde- 
pendents concede that Presbyters were rulers of the 
primitive churches ; yet assign such duties to the mem- 
bers of a church generally, as to annul the distinctive 
rule of Elders, and even bring the governors under sub- 
jection to the governed : then to qualify the unworkable- 
ness of democracy, they impose such restraints on the 
people as in effect to crush their freedom, and lodge in the 
pastorate a despotic authority. 

The primitive churches were presided over by Pres- 
byters or Elders. Whether the oversight assigned 
by Scripture to these elders be such as to preclude a 
higher oversight by prelates, I propose to inquire in 
a more advanced part of this work. Now, I am to 
consider presbyterate authority in relation to the 
rights of the Christian people, and more particularly 



58 



ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE 



to the principles of Congregationalism. That our 
Independent brethren have rendered an important 
service in so emphatically calling attention, as they 
have done, to the membership of the church, with its 
proper obligations and privileges, I am forward to 
concede. The claims of the clergy have never 
wanted prominent exhibition. There has been often 
need to remind us that every member of a con- 
gregation has functions and duties, and should be 
encouraged, in fact, to do all the good really within 
his power. It is only when governing and judicial 
functions are claimed for all members of the church, 
of whatever age, sex, or attainments, that we discern 
in the Congregational scheme opposition to Scrip- 
ture, as well as inherent and insurmountable diffi- 
culty, with certain and speedy ruin to popular 
liberty itself. 

But let our Independent brethren state their own 
case. 

We are informed by Dr Wardlaw that the distinc- 
tive polity which he defends consists in the two par- 
ticulars : " First, that each church is entrusted with 
its own government ; and second, that government 
is to be conducted, not by the office-bearers alone, as 
its representatives, but by the office-bearers and the 
congregation conjoin tly." * There is here involved 
the doctrine to which Presbyterians assent, that 
each church should have spiritual office-bearers ; and 
by these office-bearers Dr Wardlaw understands, in 
common with ourselves, the functionaries called 
* Congreg. Indep., p. 234. 



CHURCH BY PRESBYTERS. 



59 



sometimes presbyters or elders, and sometimes 
bishops, in the New Testament. 

Beyond this degree of concord we differ ; and I 
cannot help considering his definition as being not a 
little remarkable : " Government is to be conducted 
by the office-bearers and the congregation conjointly." 
Are the parties so conjoined in government to govern 
equally and in the same respects ? Then what was 
the use of distinguishing them at all ? If the office- 
bearers are not to have a distinct rule, why give them 
distinct mention ? — unless it be to impart the impor- 
tant information, that office-bearers, for being such, 
are not to be denied the privileges of unofficial Chris- 
tians ! That much, without formal announcement 
in a definition, we might have taken for granted. 
But if the special mention of office-bearers points to 
special powers in their hands, and intimates that the 
parties conjoined are, after all, not levelled or equa- 
lised, but exhibit in their conjunction difference of 
grade, then what is the superior power of office- 
bearers ? what is its nature, and what are its limits ? 
These are natural, not to say unavoidable questions ; 
and to any one adopting Dr Wardlaw's definition, 
they present enough to do in the way of clearing up 
obscurities and obviating difficulties. Dr Payne, 
who occupies like ground as Dr Wardlaw, remarks, 
" that there may be thought to be some degree of 
indefiniteness " in statements made by himself in 
explanation of Congregationalism. He contends, 
however, that u a similar difficulty is connected with 
the injunctions which bind the subject to obey the 



60 



OX THE GOVERNMENT OF THE 



governor, the wife to obey the husband, the child to 
obey the parent. They seem to leave no case open 
for the refusal of obedience, yet all admit that such 
cases may occur."* In other words, there is inde- 
finiteness connected with all authority. But in all 
the cases cited, Scripture is perfectly explicit in so 
far as our argument is concerned. It leaves no 
doubt where authority is lodged. We may be at a 
loss after what manner, or to what extent it should 
be exercised, but ice cannot question in whose hands 
it is placed. Shall we say that " the government of 
a house is to be conducted, not by the father alone, 
but by the father and his children conjointly?" 
All must be sensible that this definition of household 
rule would be unscriptural. To the parent alone the 
rule is assigned, and Congregationalists in assimilat- 
ing pastoral and parental authority, demotish, instead 
of establishing their conjoint government hypothesis. 
It is proper, however, to see howDr Wardlaw carries 
through his definition in the discussion which it pre- 
faces. I readily admit that he has applied to his 
task a masterly hand. I acknowledge also that, in 
practice, Congregational churches may often conduct 
their business . in a very becoming manner, by com- 
mitting it, in effect, to a few persons who can do it 
justice. There is not always the same amount of 
difference between Christian denominations, as be- 
tween treatises written for and against their respec- 
tive polities. But now I have to do with books, and 
with Congregationalism in print ; and to act fairly 
* Church of Christ Considered, pp. 61, 62. 



CHURCH BY PRESBYTERS. 



61 



by my argument, I shall be constrained to show, that 
while our brethern concede, in their able treatises, 
that elders (in the sense of teaching elders or pastors) 
were rulers of the primitive churches, they yet assign 
such duties to the members of a church collectively, 
as to annul the distinctive rule of elders ; and then, 
to qualify the unworkableness of democracy, impose 
such restraints on the people as in effect to crush 
their freedom, and lodge in the pastorate a despotic 
authority. I will then endeavour to show that Scrip- 
ture does not warrant any such conjoint system of 
government; and finally, that it is not needful or 
conducive to Cristian liberty. 

(1.) Our Independent brethren concede that Elders 
(in the sense of teaching elders or pastors) were rulers 
of the primitive churches. —Some Independents may 
withhold this concession ; but it is made by so many 
of their best writers, that I am fully warranted in 
assuming the position as admitted. Indeed, some 
of them speak of us as doing them and their system 
great injustice, when we charge them with a denial 
of authority to ministers. " We have pastors," says 
Dr Wardlaw, " over our churches, and we regard 
them as having, in Scripture phrase, the rule over 
them." * " The titles of ruler and president" says Dr 
Davidson, "imply that the pastors or elders of a 
church, govern, rule, or exercise authority over it ; 
which is farther evident, because the people are re- 
quired to obey, to submit themselves to them that 
* Congreg. Indep., p. 311. 



62 



ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE 



have the rule. In like manner, the flock is under the 
shepherd/'* "There is authority," says Mr James, 
" belonging to the pastor ; for office, without autho- 
rity, is a solecism. ' Remember them that have the 
rule over you/ said St Paul to the Hebrews (xiii. 7.) 
'Obey them that have the rule over you;' 'Sub- 
mit yourselves/ &c. — these are inspired injunctions, 
and they enjoin obedience and submission on Christian 
churches to their pastors." f " That the bishop or 
pastor/' says Dr Payne, "is by ordination actually 
invested with authority, is manifest from the ex- 
hortation of the apostle, (Heb. xiii 7.) The 

proper business of the pastor is, to expound, apply, 
and execute the laws of Christ." J I might multiply 
such citations indefinitely, but for the present let 
these suffice. They establish my proposition, that 
Congregationalists claim authority for pastors. 

(2.) Our Independent brethren assign such duties to 
the members of a church collectively, as annul the dis- 
tinctive rule of Elders. — " The submission enjoined," 
says Dr Wardlaw, " is submisson to the presiding 
and directing pastor or pastors, as the divinely- 
authorised organ by whom, in each case, the law of 
Christ is to be pointed out, and with the concurrent 
judgment and voice of the church, to be carried into 
execution." § Dr "Wardlaw here supposes that a 
plurality of pastors may preside and direct. I know 
not well how an assembly can have more than one 

* Eccles. Pol., p. 269. f See Chris. Fellow., pp. 56, 57. 
J Church of Christ Considered, pp. 59-61. 
§ Congreg. Indep., p. 318. 



CHURCH BY PRESBYTERS. 



63 



president ; and as for direction, if the pastors differed 
among themselves, it would be hard for the people 
to know which director to follow. These are diffi- 
culties inseparable from the Congregationalist system, 
when we take into account that every primitive 
church had, and that every Christian church should 
still have, a plurality of elders. But these are not 
the points of the argument on which I desire to fix 
attention at present. I request consideration of 
"the concurrent judgment and voice" assigned to 
the church, as being incompatible with the power 
which we have already seen to be committed to pas- 
tors. The pastor, says Dr Wardlaw, is to point out 
the law of Christ, and the church is to have a con- 
current judgment and voice. To what does this 
amount ? Is the minister to expound the law, and 
is the church bound to " concur 39 in his exposition — 
to be guided, not by Scripture, but^by his interpre- 
tation of Scripture ? The members of a jury hold 
themselves warranted to understand and apply the 
law, as explained from the bench. But our Inde- 
pendent brethren, in availing themselves occasionally 
of this forensic allusion, forget that though a jury- 
man takes his exposition of the law from another, a 
judge would not do so ; and that it is not the capa- 
city of jurymen, but of judges, which they claim for 
all persons in Christian communion. Dr Wardlaw 
characterises it as an extraordinary assertion, that 
there was no recognition of power in the Corinthian 
church to "judge or to censure/'* And he declares 

* Congreg. Indep., p. 238. 



64 



ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE 



that when Paul speaks of the people judging, " it is 
not of mere assent that he speaks, but of bona fide 
judgment."* It follows, that when the pastor shall 
have pointed out the law, the people are bound to 
judge whether it has been pointed out correctly, and 
not to yield a thoughtless or passive assent to the 
view of it which has been offered them. " It is their 
right and their duty," says Br Wardlaw, " to judge 
his (the pastors) doctrine, by the instructions of 
Christ ; and it is equally their right and their duty to 
judge his administration by the laws of Christ." f Dr 
Davidson speaks in the same strain : " The church," 
he says, "will be slow to question the contrariety 
[conformity?] of his (their pastor's) proceedings to 
the Word of God. Still, they are at perfect liberty 
to do so, since they have the Bible in their own hands, 
and are commanded to think for themselves in every 
thing relative to the church." J The pastor, then, 
is to point out the law, and the people are to judge 
whether the law be as stated, and whether it should 
be applied as proposed. Suppose, farther, that a 
member of the church believes the law of Christ to 
have been incorrectly propounded, and believes that 
many are in danger of being misled by the error, is 
he at liberty to say so ? May he rise and set forth 
where and on what grounds he differs from the ex- 
planation of the law given by his pastor ? If not, 
what is meant by " the church's voice ? " They have 
a " concurrent voice" with their teacher. Is the use 

* Congreg. Indep., p. 249. f Ibid., p. 321. 
i Eccl. Polity, p. 273. 



CHURCH BY PRESBYTERS. 



65 



of his voice, then, to give a view of the law against 
which none may whisper a doubt ; and when he has 
delivered his sentiments, is the use of the church's 
voice simply and exclusively to say, Amen? Dr 
Wardlaw, I am sure, would not sanction a conclusion 
so preposterous in itself, and so insulting to Christian 
society. He must hold, then, that the members of 
a church, as "bona fide judges," are entitled to inves- 
tigate laws, facts, everything connected with a case 
under judgment, and to declare what they think, and 
why they think so, in the same free and unrestrained 
manner as do the judges of the land. This is ex- 
pressly avowed by Dr Davidson. " The church," he 
says, " may fairly judge of the authority which a 
pastor ought to exercise agreebly to the tenor of 
the New Testament ; and should he transgress that 
boundary, he may be tenderly told of it."* These 
things being so, where is the power of the pastorate ? 
We found Dr Wardlaw contending that ministers 
have rule; to what is it now reduced? A pastor 
points out the law of Christ. Yes, but the members 
are bound in duty to judge whether the comment 
accord with the text ; and if they think that Scripture 
and the commentator differ, they are to take an in- 
dependent view of the law, as he did, and to lift up 
their u voice " in declaration of their mind, as he did, 
and to decide for themselves, as he did, and all this 
though it should be in opposition to his judgment. 
Where, then, is the power of rule? There is "a 
conjoint government," says Dr Wardlaw; for "govern- 

* Eccles. Polity, p. 273. 

E 



66 ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE 



ment is to be conducted by the office-bearers and 
the congregation conjunctly." The pastors are to 
govern with the people. But since there is a conjoint 
government, the converse proposition must hold true 
also, that the people are to govern with the pastors ; 
and so nothing is said of one of the parties that is 
not said of the other. None are distinctively gover- 
nors, for all govern conjointly ; i.e., all are governors 
together. But that is just to say that none are 
rulers, properly so called; for when we speak of 
any bearing rule in society, we always mean a dis- 
tinctive rule ; and if a person were said to be ruler 
of any community, we would hold ourselves to have 
been misled by the language, when it turned out to 
mean that the individual had no rule beyond the 
rights which he held in common with all others. It 
appears to me, therefore, that the advocates of Con- 
gregationalism build a wall and pull it down again — - 
first insisting that authority and rule are vested in 
ministers, and then assigning the same authority and 
rule to a whole society, in which the pastor acts as 
an individual, as one of many, and has no power, 
except what he exercises conjointly with all others, 
and they with him. He judges, but they judge his 
judgment ; "it is their right and their duty to judge 
his doctrine and to judge his administration ; " and if 
they reach a contrary conclusion, they of course carry 
it over him by their majority. Dr Wardlaw speaks 
much about the church concurring ; but if there 
arise a collision of judgment in their conjoint govern- 
ment, the concurrence must be on the side of the pastor. 



CHURCH BY PRESBYTERS. 



67 



In all cases of difference, the part of the ruler is to 
submit or to resign. 

(3.) Oar Independent brethren, to qualify the unwork- 
ableness of democracy, impose such restrictions on the 
people as in effect to crush their freedom, and lodge in the 
pastorate a despotic authority. — We have found the 
members of churches declared to be judges in eccle- 
siastical cases, to have the power of bona fide judgment, 
and to be united in the government with their spi- 
ritual teachers. This is high privilege to look upon. 
But is a community of rulers an idea reducible to 
practice ? If every one in a multitude were to deport 
himself or herself as a conjoint governor or governess, 
and use a freedom of thought and " voice" accordant 
with the pretension, could any business be transacted, 
any progress made in improvement and enterprise ? 
Our Congregational friends have no notion of making 
the experiment. None are more averse than their 
ablest writers to popular licence ; and having raised 
the spirit of democracy to demolish sessions,* they 
forthwith circumscribe and shackle it, that it may not 
be insubordinate and troublesome to ministers. Dr 
Wardlaw asserts in capital letters that " all are not 
rulers." \ He holds that pastors are the sole rulers. 
But how is this ? Each church, he maintains, is en- 
trusted with its own government, and that government, 
is to be conducted, " not by the office-bearers alone 
as its representatives, but by the office-bearers and 

* A session is a company of elders who rule, presided over 
by an elder who both rules and teaches, 
f Congregational Independency, p. 310. 



68 



ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE 



the congregation conjointly/' * One would think that 
where there is a conjoint government there must be 
conjoint governors; and yet the people, though conjoint 
in the government, are not governors — not rulers at 
all ! This is a somewhat startling announcement to 
parties triumphing in the establishment of their judi- 
cial and self-governing powers, to the utter exclusion 
of sessional interference. Nor do fuller explanations 
dissipate the apprehensions which may thus be awak- 
ened. " Others," says Dr Davidson, " would limit it 
(the authority of pastors) to advice or counsel. But the 
terms employed in the New Testament, namely, rule 
as applied to the elders, ohedience as applied to the 
church, mean more than this, else they have been ill 
chosen. It is not natural to dilute the whole autho- 
rity possessed by pastors into mere advice or counsel." f 
A minister, then, may point out the law of Christ, 
and advise and counsel the people to follow the course 
which he thinks scriptural ; but if he can do nothing 
more, "mere advice and counsel" are defective (Dr 
Davidson thinks) in efficacy, and constitute at the best 
a diluted authority. He would arm pastors with more 
of the executive principle. " 1st, (he says) They pre- 
side in all meetings of the church. 2d, They call 
the attention of the members to the principles or 
laws laid down by Christ, and insist on obedience to 
them In meetings of the church, no mem- 
ber should speak without permission of the elders 
(teaching elders), nor continue to do so when they 
impose silence. The elders give and withhold liberty 
* Congreg. Indep., p. 234. f Ecclesiastical Polity, p. 273. 



CHURCH BY PRESBYTERS. 



69 



of speech when the church is assembled. In such 
meetings, no member should oppose the judgment of 
the presiding elder."* Do Independent ministers 
adopt in sober earnest these maxims, and reduce them 
to practice? If so, we must sympathise with the 
ejaculation of Dr Wardlaw — " Let it not be said to 
Independents, Your pastors have no power ! 99 

Where, again, shall we find an assembly of "judges," 
or an assembly called deliberative, or an assembly of 
any kind, except a church, that would endure such 
control? Every tongue is tied till the chairman 
looses it ; and so soon as it offends him, he can tie it 
again. The church has the privilege of concurring 
in his sentence, but opposition to his judgment is an 
impertinence or a crime. 

And what if any have " a just and sufficient reason" 
for non-compliance ? Dr Davidson himself supposes 
such a case. And what redress does he provide for 
such grievance, what relief from such oppression? " In 
the position they occupy," he says, " they should have 
a thorough persuasion of the propriety of resistance, 
by virtue of Christ's laws, before they venture to 
assume an attitude of insubordination. And not only 
must they have this conviction, but be also able to set 
it forth before the church, commending it to them 
as reasonable and right. They must explain the 
grounds of their conviction, placing them in the clear 
light of reason and Scripture, and demonstrating 
their adequateness to justify disobedience." f There 
is something like privilege here, I confess ; something 

* Ecclesiastical Polity, p. 274. f Ibid., P- 274. 



70 



ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE 



of the nature of judicial prerogative — a warrant to 
exercise personal judgment in relation to the mean- 
ing of Scripture — to form a conviction, and express 
that conviction, and explain the grounds of it, and 
all this in direct contradiction to the declared views 
of the minister. Armed with this permission, an ag- 
grieved member rises to address the chair. His ex- 
j^ression is not promising to the eye of the chairman, 
who, believing good order to be perilled, forthwith 
beckons him to hold his peace, and reminds him that 
" in meetings of the church, no member should speak 
without permission of the elders, nor continue to do 
so when they impose silence." " I stand upon my 
rights," exclaims the complainant. " And I stand 
upon mine," responds the pastor ; " and it belongs to 
the elders to give and withhold liberty of speech when 
the church is assembled." What is the aggrieved 
member to do then ? Dr Davidon has not told us, 
and I am not able to discover. Yet he declares that 
" simplicity is another excellence of th0 (Independent) 

system In the accomplishment of its objects, 

nothing is so complicated in its nature as to bewilder 
the judgment of its members. All is plain and intel- 
ligible because of its simplicity. The brethren know 
immediately how to proceed in the adjustment of a 
matter when it arises."* 

Some may object that Dr Davidson is but one 
writer, and that very much stress should not be laid 
on the unguarded expressions of any individual. I 
answer that many of the most eminent Independents 
* Ecclesiastical Polity, p. 383. 



CHURCH BY PRESBYTERS. 



71 



have expressed themselves similarly : — "It is my 
decided conviction," says Mr James, "that in some of 
our churches the pastor is depressed far below his 
just level. He is considered merely in the light of 
a speaking brother. He has no official distinction 
or authority." * In another part of the same work, 
Mr James says, " Eeal Congregationalism is not 
democracy. It maintains, indeed, that every sepa- 
rate congregation of believers has the entire power 
of government within itself ; but it does not teach 
that that power is vested in the private members of 
the church. It admits and affirms, in common with 
other systems, that pastors alone are the rulers of 
the church ; but it more fully explains the nature, 
and limits, and extent of this authority than they."| 
Still farther on, in the same treatise, we are told — 
" All the proceedings at a church meeting should 
either emanate directly from the pastor, or from others, 
by his previous knowledge and consent. If this be 
neglected, and members are allowed' to introduce 
any business which they please, our church meetings 
would very much resemble the scene which was ex- 
hibited at the tower of Babel/' { " As little dis- 
cussion," he says, " as is really possible should 
take place at our church meetings. The admonition 
of the apostle is always in season, but never more so 
than in reference to the times of the assembling of 
the saints : 6 Let every man be slow to speak/ No- 
thing but the most obvious necessity should induce 

* Christian Fellowship, p. 57. f Ibid., p. 164. 

i Ibid., p. 170. 



72 



ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE 



a single individual to utter a syllable ; and when any 
one does deliver his opinion, it should not be in 
a prating dogmatical manner, but in few words, 
modestly spoken. Talking assemblies soon become 
disorderly ones."* Mr James gives the minister 
an absolute negative on the admission of members to 
the church, and says, " No member should presume 
to bring forward a candidate in opposition to the 
opinion of the pastor/' f Dr Campbell goes further, 
and not only lodges with the minister a negative on 
the admission of members, but makes the whole 
matter of admission rest with himself. " There is 
not one instance," he says, " in the New Testament, 
of a case being submitted to the scrutiny of the 
church in order to baptism, or of any confession of 
faith being made afterwards to the church in order to 
admission into fellowship. The commission of Christ 
to his apostles clothes the evangelist or pastor at 
once with the authority and responsibility of admi- 
nistering the ordinance of baptism, and, consequently, 
of admitting members." J These writers are de- 
voted friends of freedom, and of all human rights. 
Why, then, do they assign such extraordinary power 
to a pastor ? Because he must have it if he is to 
conduct a conjoint government with a multitude. 
When matters of importance and delicacy are to be 
judged of by assembled hundreds of men and women, 
old and young, experienced and inexperienced, the 

* Christian Fellowship, p. 171. I give italics and capitals 
as they are found in the original, 
t Ibid., p. 172. $ Church Fellowship, p. 19. 



CHURCH BY PRESBYTERS. 



73 



alternative lies between this absoluteness and anarchy. 
An old and well-trained church may know how the 
business needs to be managed. They may be aware 
that Scripture must be held as " not teaching that 
power is vested in the private members of the 
church ; " that " no member should presume to bring 
forward a candidate in opposition to the opinion of 
the pastor ; " that " all proceedings must emanate di- 
rectly from him, or from others, by his previous 
knowledge or consent;" that "talking" is out of 
the question; and that a "syllable" is not to be 
uttered, unless in so far as the pastor sees urgent 
necessity for it, and " gives liberty of speech," which 
he is equally entitled at any moment to " withhold ;" 
in a word, that "no member should oppose the judg- 
ment of the presiding elder." These rules, to the extent 
they are observed, will no doubt secure tranquillity. 

But can a new society be expected on a sudden to 
conform itself to this restraint ? When told that they 
have " a conjoint government with the pastor ; " that 
it is " their right and duty to judge his doctrine by 
the instructions of Christ, and equally their right 
and duty to judge his ministration by the laws of 
Christ ; " and that all this language is to be under- 
stood of " bona fide judgment," they must be tempted 
to think that they have some " power," and to essay 
the exercise of it, and to become restive or even 
tumultuous when they are told that they are "not 
rulers," and have "not power," and that they are 
not to speak when their president imposes silence. 
My Independent brethren will bear me witness that 



74 



ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE 



there is here a real difficulty — a difficulty which pre- 
vents many new churches from being formed in the 
large towns of England, and causes the very inade- 
quate substitute of preaching stations to be preferred 
as safer. 

Such are the conclusions to which able and ex- 
cellent men are driven, when, in denying superinten- 
dence to sessions, they lodge self-government in a 
whole society, and are ready to be overpowered by 
the democracy which they have sanctioned. In the 
truest love for the church, they are constrained to 
repress popular licence. We shall perceive in the 
sequel that a true popular liberty must be sought for 
by " a more excellent way." 



CHAPTER II. 

Scripture does not teach us that pastors and their flocks 
should be conjoined in the government of the church — In 
behalf of this system of polity our Lord's law for the 
settlement of private offences, Matt, xviii. 15-17, and the 
functions assigned to ordinary members of the church, 1 
Cor. v., vi., are vainly pleaded. 

However ill-assorted and incongruous any scheme 
of ecclesiastical administration might appear to our 
view, yet, if it had the plain and explicit sanction of 
revelation, our duty would be the utmost possible obe- 
dience; and where we could not reconcile seeming 



CHURCH BY PRESBYTERS. 



75 



contradictions, it would become us to wait patiently 
in the dark till more light should be afforded us. 
But I cannot think that we are subjected in this 
case to any such necessity — that we are required by 
Scripture to regard pastors as rulers, and sole rulers ; 
and then conjoin the people with them in the govern- 
ment ; and then, in terror of popular commotion, 
assign to pastors a despotic control of church meet- 
ings. It is allowed, on our part, that churches are 
addressed and exhorted by the inspired writers 
t both in regard to the exercise of discipline and the 
settlement of differences ; and the only question 
is, whether a Christian society may, like other 
societies, transact its business through chosen and 
proper functionaries, or, unlike other societies, must 
be understood to manage all its affairs directly and 
collectively ? 

The law which our Lord lays down for the settle- 
ment of private differences * has been frequently 
I adduced as shedding much light on the scriptural 
mode of conducting discipline. It has been con- 
fidently pleaded, however, in behalf of contrary 
systems of procedure. Our Lord directs that when 
a person who has committed an offence continues 
obdurate and impenitent, the party offended, after 
taking other steps fruitlessly, shall in the end " tell 
it to the church." 

I readily concede that by the church we naturally 
understand here a religious society. But the ques- 
tion remains whether the use of the word church 

* Matt, xviii. 1 5 -17. 



76 ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE 

requires us to understand that all the members of 
the society are to be convened, and to sit in judg- 
ment on the accusation ; or whether we are allowed 
to suppose — and other passages of Scripture require 
us to believe — that the church may be regarded as 
conducting such affairs through fitting functionaries, 
and committing the disposal of them to wise men, 
able to judge between their brethren. When offend- 
ing parties are dealt with by oar sessions, and yield 
the penitential obedience required of them, they are 
said, in common phrase, to " give satisfaction to the 
church." The elders are regarded as acting for the 
church, and the church as acting through them. 
But the controversialist of future times would reason 
hastily in seizing on the phrase, " satisfaction to the 
church," and arguing from it that all the business of 
each church was conducted by its assembled members. 
I accept the rule which Dr Wardlaw here prescribes, 
that " in any particular passage, a word should be 
understood in the sense in which it is commonly 
used, unless reason of necessity, or at the least of 
strong propriety, can be shown for understanding it 
otherwise." * What, then, does the common use of 
language indicate as to the mode in which "the 
church," of which our Lord speaks, managed cases 
of discipline ? The question may be regarded as 
referring to the practice of the synagogues as then 
existing, or to the subsequent practice of the Chris- 
tian churches. Dr Wardlaw quotes from Principal 
Campbell a long passage, in which it is contended 

* Congreg, Indep., p. 64. 



CHURCH BY PRESBYTERS. 



77 



that the ecclesiastical administration of the syna- 
gogue, at least in cases of trespass, was entirely 
popular. An opposite opinion has been learnedly 
maintained ; and Dr Wardlaw says, " I am aware 
that a good deal has been made, by the advocates of 
representative church government, of a supposed 
allusion to the Jewish synagogues, and to the con- 
stitution and practice of discipline in them." There 
is little satisfaction in pondering the erudite disqui- 
sitions of Yitringa, Lightfoot, and others, regarding 
the synagogue ; the very ingenuity of these writers 
is constantly reminding us of the paucity of their 
facts, and the defectiveness of their proofs. " It is 
exceedingly difficult," says Dr Davidson, " if not 
impossible, to ascertain the condition and form of 
the Jewish synagogue in the time of Christ. Those 
who have tried to describe it can go no higher for 
definite information than to writers of the second 
century, — Philo and Josephus furnishing very meagre 
notices, — while authors belonging to the third, fourth, 
eighth, and ninth, even Moses Maimonides in the 
twelfth, are appealed to. All these are too recent 
to be of much weight, or entitled' to implicit credit. 
Jewish writers of a comparatively late period were 
scarcely competent to give an accurate account of 
the synagogue service and government in the time 
of Christ, especially as they were accustomed to 
transfer later customs to much earlier times. Doubt- 
less the mode of worship in the synagogue was con- 
siderably changed after the Jewish polity became 
extinct. It is also generally admitted that the Jews 



78 



ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE 



borrowed, it may be unconsciously, several things 
from the practice of Christians, particularly of Chris- 
tian apostates. That uncertainty attaches to the 
sources whence our knowledge of the synagogue has 
been derived, is apparent from the fact, that Vitringa 
and Lightfoot differ in their opinions on several im- 
portant points of its constitution ; that the former is 
compelled to resort to conjecture in not a few cases, 
for the purpose of making out an analogy ; and that 
occasional assertions are made, virtually amounting 
to a concession of the untractableness of the argu- 
ment undertaken/''* If I may offer an opinion on 
likelihood where we can learn little more, I venture 
to say, that the supposition of a popular administra- 
tion prevailing in the synagogues appears extremely 
improbable. That it ever did so is not proved ; that 
it would continue to do so through successive cen- 
turies is almost incredible. Principal Campbell 
shows how, in Christian societies constituted analo- 
gously to the synagogues, if not after their model, 
small distinctions were gradually widened, to the 
injury and restriction of general freedom; and, 
through the tendencies of our nature operating on 
such elements, the people were finally subjected to 
the lordly dictation of their pastors. Did the dis- 
tinctions in the synagogue not so widen ? did the 
tendencies of our nature fail to operate there ? and 
down to the times of our Lord, were the rights of 
the poor, in despite of all contrary influences, 
triumphantly ascendant ? An affirmative answer is 

* Eccles. Polity, pp. 48, 49. 



CHUKCH BY PRESBYTERS. 



79 



not favoured by the spirit of the country or of the 
epoch. Much is said, and with too much truth, 
about prelatical aggressions in the earlier centuries 
of the history of the Christian church. But culpable 
as prelates are known to have •been, it cannot be 
alleged that they were more grasping or intolerant 
than the Pharisees. Various incidents mention- 
ed in the New Testament serve to show that the 
Pharisees did usurp the discipline of the syna- 
gogue. The Jews had agreed,* "that if any man 
did confess that Jesus was Christ, he should be put 
out of the synagogue." This language seems to be 
sufficiently general, and viewed by itself it might be 
interpreted as comprehensive of the whole Jewish 
nation. But Scripture abounds in general terms 
used in a limited sense. If we inquire what Jews 
had the making of this agreement, or by what agency 
it was carried into execution, we have these queries 
answered in the context : " They brought to the 
Pharisees him that aforetime was blind." " The 
Pharisees also asked him how he had received his 
sight." " Therefore, said some of the Pharisees, 
This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the 
Sabbath-day." In the spirit of despising others, 
these self-righteous inquisitors said to the subject of 
miraculous cure, who had modestly vindicated his 
benefactor, " Thou wast altogether born in sins, and 
dost thou teach us ? And they cast him out." The 
men who plumed themselves on being the teachers 
were the same who cast people out of the synagogue, 

* John ix. 22, &c 



80 



ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE 



and who deemed the arrogance of saying a kind word 
for their benefit a sufficient crime to merit such 
excommunication. If, then, the appeal is made to 
the synagogue as it subsisted in the days of our 
Lord, I suspect that little can be expected from its 
decision in favour of Congregationalism. 

It is proper to add, that Dr Wardlaw lays no 
stress on the passage which he quotes from Dr Camp- 
bell in favour of synagogue democracy. That our 
Lord makes any allusion at all to the synagogue he 
considers " little more than conjectural." He asks, 
" Why not regard our divine Master as then speak- 
ing for the future, and in this, as in some other 
matters, reserving the clear and full understanding 
of his words till the time when the Holy Spirit was 
to lead them into all truth ? .... In this way the 
precise meaning of the words of the Lord will fall to 
be ascertained from the subsequent record of apostolic 
practice, and from the counsels given by apostolic 
authority." * To this statement of the case I accede. 
The command to tell an offence, not repented of, to 
the church, does not give its oivn full meaning ; there- 
fore it is not decisive of the controversy between Con- 
gregationalists and Presbyterians ; and to know how 
the church is to dispose of the offences of which it is 
told, we must turn to passages which exhibit to us 
the Christian church in existence and action, and 
which develop more clearly its organization and 
working ; for the terms employed by our Lord, says 
Dr Wardlaw, ought to be understood according to 
* Congreg. Indep., p. 72. 



CHURCH BY PRESBYTERS. 



81 



the sense in which they are afterwards, by his in- 
spired and commissioned vicegerents, applied to the 
constitution and transactions of the New Testament 
church. Let us turn, then, to those subsequent 
writings on which Dr Wardlaw places his reliance, 
as expository of the direction which Christ gave by 
anticipation. Dr Wardlaw lays great stress on the 
fifth and sixth chapters of 1st Corinthians, as showing 
that all members of a church are to be conjoined in 
the government with the pastorate. This, in fact, 
after the passage just considered, is the only portion 
of Scripture by which he seeks to establish the con- 
joint system of government, in opposition to the 
pervading language of the New Testament, which 
assigns superintendence to presbyters, and subordi- 
nation to the people. 

I begin the consideration of Paul's language re- 
garding church order addressed to the Christians at 
Corinth, by remarking, that Dr Wardlaw's principle 
of interpretation would assign to private church 
members a regulation of those duties which he him- 
self elsewhere restricts to ministers, such as the 
administration of ordinances. The apostle speaks 
in language equally general about the dispensation of 
the Lord's supper as about the trial of offenders. So 
palpable is this fact, that Dr Davidson thinks the 
elders would certainly, in such a case, have been 
addressed, if there had been elders ; and he con- 
cludes, therefore, that this church was yet in a 
nascent state, and not fully organised — on which 
supposition its practice would prove nothing regard- 



82 



ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE 



ing a church with perfected order, and in full 
organization. " From the first epistle to the Corin- 
thians," saysDr Davidson, "we infer that the church 
at Corinth had no office-bearers at the time when 

Paul wrote to them In the observance of 

the supper, certain abuses prevailed which the apostle 
wished to correct. His exhortations and rebukes, 
however, are not addressed to the elders, but to the 
disciples themselves. The brethren are addressed, not 
the authorised administrators of ordinances. Should 
not the latter have been addressed, had the church 
been provided with them?"* Other expositors of 
Scripture have expressed the same view. " That 
some of the churches," says Principal Campbell, " to 
which Paul's epistles were directed had no fixed 
ministry, is evident from the tenor of the epistles 
themselves, particularly from those written to the 
Corinthians."! These chapters, then, on Dr Ward- 
law's principle of interpretation, would prove too 
much for his cause ; they would prove not only that 
the people should have judicial functions, but be 
charged with the due administration of ordinances. 
And if Dr Davidson's opinion be received, that this 
church had not yet stated officers, an exceptional state 
can be no model for ordinary procedure. 

But let us take the case as Dr Wardlaw presents 
it, and allow him all the advantage of his own 
exegesis of the epistle. The fifth and sixth chapters 
are allowed to present cases of like character, and to 

* Eccles. Polity, p. 285. 

t On Church Hist., vol. i. p. 154. 



CHURCH BY PRESBYTERS. 



83 



be explicable on like principles. The sixth chapter 
opens thus : " Dare any of you, having a matter 
against another, go to law before the unjust, and not 
before the saints ? Do ye not know that the saints 
shall judge the world ? and if the world shall be 
judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the 
smallest matters ? Know ye not that we shall judge 
angels ? how much more things that pertain to this 
life ? If then ye have judgments of things pertain- 
ing to this life, set them to judge who are least 
esteemed in the church. I speak to your shame. 
Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you ? 
no, not one that shall be able to judge between his 
brethren ? " 

In Dr Wardlaw's general explanation of these 
verses I am disposed to concur. It seems strange 
that the church should be directed to set them who 
were least esteemed to judge. But " least esteemed, 39 
observes Dr Wardlaw, " is not a translation of the 
original word e^ovfovrifisvovg. It means neither more 
nor less than despised, treated with contempt. They 
were so treating their brethren when they thus 
passed them by as incompetent or as undeserving of 
their trust, and carried their matters of difference 
before the heathen ; and his injunction is, that they 
should no longer act thus contemptuously towards 
them, but constitute those their judges whom they 
were in this manner despising." * 

* Congreg. Indep., pp. 250, 251. Billroth translates the term 
ilovQmpivovs, " those whose reputation is impaired or little 
thought of."— See Biblical Cabinet, No. XXI. This rendering 



84 



ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE 



That these verses relate to ecclesiastical procedure, 
though about secular differences, Dr Wardlaw ex- 
plicitly maintains. " We know," he says, " from 
1 Cor, vi. 1-7, that the churches did take cognisance 
of differences even as to secular matters which were 
amongst their members."* 

After these preliminary remarks, we are prepared 
to consider the bearing of the passage on the question 
at issue. So far the language of the apostle has that 
generality on which Dr Wardlaw founds so confi- 
dently, as proving the judicial status of all church 
members. " Are ye unworthy to judge the smallest 
matters ? " Here all seem to be addressed, and to 
have worthiness to judge ascribed to them without 
exception. But so much the more adverse is this 
phraseology to Dr Wardlaw's argument, when the 
rest of the verses show us how to understand this 
general language wherever it may occur, and plainly 
demand for it a restricted signification. " Set them 
to judge," says the apostle. But why set any to judge 
if all were judges ? " His injunction is," says Dr 
Wardlaw, " that they should constitute those their 
judges," &c. But why should some constitute others 
judges, if they were all judges without exception ? 

" Is it so," says Paul, " that there is not a wise man 
among you ? no, not one that shall be able to judge 

does not give exactly the same sense. The apostle, if Dr 
Wardlaw's exposition is correct, does not speak of general 
" reputation, " but of parties being treated, in the particular 
matters alluded to, as if they were of no repute or conse- 
quence. 
* Congreg. Indep., p. 335. 



CHURCH BY PRESBYTERS. 



85 



between his brethren ? " Does not this language of 
the apostle imply that there might be some in the 
church who were not wise, in the sense of competency 
to settle differences — nay, that there might be very 
many who might not be able to judge, and whom 
therefore it would be absurd to bid do what they 
were not able to do ; but that the apostle was clear 
in his cause if only one in all the church was fit for 
the duty, because this one should then be set to judge 
between his brethren ? The argument of Paul de- 
manded that one competent to judge should be found 
in the church — " is there not a wise man among you ? 
no, not one ;" the argument of Dr Wardlaw demands 
that every one in a church shall be a judge, and of 
course fit for his calling. Suppose that the apostle's 
counsel was followed, that some wise men were set 
to judge, and in accordance with their character 
judged wisely ; suppose that this church came after- 
wards to elect rulers, would not these wise men be 
elected ? and if judgment was vested in them before 
ordination to office, would it not be so after ordination, 
and would not this church present the exact aspect 
of a Presbyterian church acting judicially through its 
session ? 

How does Dr Wardlaw get out of this position ? 
" The procedure recommended," he says, " as the 
best for bringing all to a clear understanding and a 
satisfactory issue, appears to be the nomination of 
such individuals of their number as, from character, 
occupation, and habits, might in each case be best 
qualified for the task, who should institute a full 



86 



ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE 



investigation of the facts, should form a judgment 
on the merits, and should report both, more or less 
minutely, as the nature of the matter in controversy 
might require, to the church; that thus enlightened, 
they might pronounce their collective and authori- 
tative sentence." * 

In this delineation there is a little phrase which 
greatly affects the meaning of the whole — the phrase 
I allude to is that of "forming a judgment" By form- 
ing a judgment we commonly mean forming an 
opinion ; and thus Dr Wardlaw intimates that the 
parties set to judge were not to judge after all, but 
only so consider what should be judged. The pro- 
nouncing of a judgment Dr Wardlaw reserves for the 
collective and authoritative sentence of the church. 
But where does Dr Wardlaw find that to judge means 
to form an opinion ? In contending for the judicial 
functions of church members, he claimed for the word 
judge all that is needful to " bona fide judgment 
why does he strip it of this signification now, and 
dilute judgment into indecisive and unauthoritative 
notion ? And where does the record say a syllable 
about reporting to the church, and the church pro- 
nouncing sentence? In Paul's language there is 
nothing of the sort ; these clauses are pure glosses. 
If I were to speak of Dr Wardlaw's reasoning in this 
case as he does of Dr Mason's in another case, I 
would say that these clauses are "a presumptuous 

apocryphal interpolation Have the supporters 

of Presbyterianism [Independency] any right to 
* Congreg. Indep., p. 251. 



CHURCH BY PRESBYTERS. 



87 



blame us for declining to own ourselves bound by 
such apocryphal matter, or for marvelling at the pre- 
sumption of foisting it into the text ? " * I think, 
however, that this phraseology is too energetic. I 
am sure that Dr Wardlaw meant nothing presump- 
tuous, and that he would relinquish Independency 
the same hour in which he saw it to be at variance 
with God's Word. I therefore merely say, in terms 
with which Dr Wardlaw has elsewhere supplied me, 
that " if we are allowed the free use of probabilities 
and suppositions for getting over difficulties, they 
can seldom be long in our way." 

I have noticed the difficulties attaching to the posi- 
tion of Drs Wardlaw and Davidson, as it is defended 
by themselves. Principal Campbell occupies sub- 
stantially the same ground, but with enough of dif- 
ference to obviate, apparently at least, some of the 
foregoing objections. He thinks that the Corinthian 
church was instructed to refer disputes about property 
to the decision of arbiters. " It is manifest," he says, 
" that the apostle does not recommend it to the people 
to take such secular matters under their own cognis- 
ance collectively, but only to appoint proper persons 
to judge in them."f On the other hand, if cases were 
of a moral nature, they were to be adjudicated on, 
he thinks, by the entire society : " Not only were 
private offences then judged by the church, that is, 
the congregation, but also those scandals which af- 
fected the whole Christian fraternity." J While secular 
* Congeg. Indep., p. 289. 

+ On Church Hist., vol. i. p. 58. £ Ibid., p. 55. 



88 



ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE 



cases were thus to be referred to arbiters, and moral 
cases to the whole church, the pastor, in all spiritual 
matters lying beyond these provinces, was to be in- 
vested with authority ; and Principal Campbell thinks 
that his power among Independents is not, generally 
speaking, sufficiently maintained. " That the pastors 
were from the beginning vested with a superintend- 
ence over the congregation purely in what concerned 
spiritual matters, cannot/' he says, " be questioned. 
Some of the titles that are given them in Scripture 
(qyov/jbsvoi, tfgoitrafjbevoi, guides, governors) undoubt- 
edly imply this much, as do also the terms in which 
the duty of the people to their pastors is recom- 
mended: tftifeefo, vxsixsrs, obey, submit- — which mani- 
festly require a respectful observance on their part. 
For this reason I imagine that the generality of those 
modern sects which have adopted the Congregational 
or Independent plan, as it is called, have gone to an 
extreme, though not the most common extreme, in 
bringing the pastor's authority too low." * At the 
same time, Dr Campbell is careful to remark, that his 
demand for authority to pastors does not apply to 
administration which he had already claimed for the 
flock. " All, however, that I purpose," he says, "by 
quoting the aforesaid titles and commands (titles of 
ministers, and commands to obey them), is to show 
that in what related to the peculiar duties of their 
office a reverential attention was acknowledged to be 
due to them as the guides and guardians of the flock. 
There were some things which from the beginning 
*0n Church Hist,, p. 174. 



CHURCH BY PRESBYTERS. 



89 



were conducted in common by the pastors, the 
deacons, and the whole congregation." * Here con- 
fusion is avoided by division of labour. It is not in 
the same matters that all are to decide, and a few 
arbiters are to decide ; nor is it in the same province 
that the people are to govern with the pastor, and 
yet be subject to him. These inconsistencies are 
here avoided. Arbiters are to get temporal questions 
committed to them ; the church collectively is to dis- 
pose of moral offences ; and the pastor in all things 
else is to have a spiritual control. There is here no 
contradiction. This very dissipation of obscurity, 
however, makes some difficulties more palpable and 
dismaying. 

(1.) Why should the church entertain in any man- 
ner disputes plainly and merely civil ? If parties 
differed about a purely secular business, there might 
be good reason why they should themselves choose 
arbiters, but not why the church should take up such 
a question, and choose arbiters for them. Does it 
belong to the church to set some to judge in such 
matters ? Principal Campbell says of Christ, that 
"far from affecting any secular power himself, he 
refused a royalty of this sort when the people would 
have conferred it, and would not take upon him to 
decide in a matter of civil right and property, though 
desired. 6 Man/ said he to the person who applied 
to him, ( who made me a judge and a divider over 
you But if it was unsuitable for Christ, is it not 

also, and on like grounds, unsuitable in his church 
* On Church Hist., p. 175. + Ibid., vol. i. p. 42. 



90 



ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE 



to affect secular power, and to decide in matters of 
civil right and property, either after one fashion or 
another ? 

(2.) There is no discoverable reason why a secular 
question should demand for its settlement wise men 
able to judge, and a question of guilt or innocence 
should be safely committed to a whole society, and 
thus to the comparatively unwise and disqualified for 
judgment in that society. Where criminality is 
charged, and the charge is repelled — where sophistry 
has to be exposed, and evasion intercepted, and 
loquacity restrained — and the course of impartial 
justice composedly prosecuted amid encompassing 
temptations to excitement and temper — one might 
suppose that in these circumstances, if in any cir- 
cumstances, the attribute of wisdom would have its 
appropriate exercise, and find all its resources needed 
for its exigencies. 

(3.) Since Paul speaks as if secular matters were 
to be judged by " saints" generally, and in addressing 
the Corinthian church says, " If the world shall be 
judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest 
matters?" and yet in the language which follows 
expresses himself restrictedly, and makes it unequi- 
vocally evident that the church was to fulfil this duty 
by setting some to judge who were competent for 
the task — why should we not explain his language in 
regard to moral causes on the same principles, and 
understand him as there also ascribing to the church 
what he designed it should perform by selected and 
competent functionaries ? 



CHURCH BY PRESBYTERS. 



91 



(4.) If presbyters had no more authority than others 
in the trial of offenders, and it were distinctly under- 
stood that the passages ascribing superintendence to 
the pastorate had no application to this department 
of duty, then orderly administration of discipline 
would become impossible. I do not wonder that Drs 
Wardlaw and Davidson do not avail themselves of Dr 
Campbell's distinctions. To have a trial conducted 
by a whole society, and whatever passions might be 
stirred, whatever turbulence occasioned, there existed 
no recognised government for the enforcement of law 
and the repression of tumult, — this would be a mode 
of administration imprinted with folly, and pregnant 
with ruin. Here our Congregational friends do not 
put off pastoral authority, but bring into requisition 
all its succours. Here it is that no case may be 
broached without previous communication with the 
minister, or even without his express consent. Here 
it is that no person may speak without permission 
from his teaching presbyters, or continue speaking 
when they have imposed silence. Here it is where 
none may oppose the judgment of the presiding elder. 
This is a practical repudiation of Dr Campbell's 
hypothesis. 

(5.) When civil causes have been referred to ar- 
biters, and matters of scandal have been entrusted 
to the whole church, it is difficult to say precisely in 
what the spiritual control claimed by Dr Campbell 
for pastors is to consist. Doctrine remains : but the 
minister is not surely to dictate a creed to his people. 
They are to search the Scriptures daily, whether these 



92 



OX THE GOVERNMENT OF THE 



things be so. It is rather hard, then, to blame 
ministers for letting' down their authority while in- 
terdicting its introduction wherever it might be sup- 
posed to be exercised. Having so largely reduced 
the exercise of it, and yet censured the depression of 
it, Dr Campbell should have said where and how it 
was to be upheld. 

(6.) It does not appear, from a careful perusal of 
the sixth chapter of 1st Corinthians, that the disputes 
for the settlement of which Paul recommends the 
appointment of competent judges, were entirely of a 
secular nature. It is true, as Principal Campbell 
says, that persons may differ in regard to the title 
to a particular subject, each claiming it as his, and 
yet neither may accuse the other of injurious or un- 
christian treatment. But it is by no means evident 
that the cases spoken of in the chapter under con- 
sideration were of this nature. Had they been so, 
little scandal could have resulted from bringing them 
before the ordinary legal tribunals. It was the wrong 
perpetrated in such transactions, and the mutual re- 
criminations to which injustice gave rise, that exposed 
Christianity to reproach in the courts of Pagan magis- 
trates. " Now, therefore," says the apostle, verses 
7-9, " there is utterly a fault among you, because ye 
go to law one with another : why do ye not rather 
take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves 
to be defrauded? Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, 
and that your brethren. Know ye not that the un- 
righteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?" 
.With no probability can it be maintained that dis- 



CHURCH BY PRESBYTERS. 



93 



putes so described by the apostle had in them no 
moral element, and embodied no accusation of inju- 
rious or unchristian treatment. The language has 
quite as much suitableness to a criminal as to a civil 
process ; and we have therefore the distinct authority 
of the apostle for saying that when charges of wrong 
and unrighteousness are made, the church can best 
dispose of them by referring adjudication upon them 
to a select body, — to a set of wise men able to judge 
between their brethren. 



CHAPTER III. 

The Congregationalist system of government is not necessary 
to Christian freedom. 

Congregationalism wears a popular aspect in de- 
claring that all communicants are bona fide judges, 
and that they are conjoined in government with the 
pastors. These judicial and governing functions do 
not amount to very much when they are explained 
and qualified to render them compatible with peace 
— when we are told that the people are not rulers, 
and that pastors are the sole rulers — when we are 
assured that true Independency is not democracy, 
and that power is not lodged in the private members 
of the church — when freedom of speech is meted out 
to the people in syllables, or positively withheld; 
and when in church meetings all business must ema- 



94 ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE 



nate from the pastor, and no member may oppose 
the judgment of the presiding*elder. Still, some may- 
think that popular assemblages, however conducted, 
afford a certain guarantee, wanting in Presbytery, for 
the maintenance of general freedom. If the Pres- 
byterian polity were characteristically tyrannical, 
this objection to it would be fatal. Where the Spirit 
of the Lord is there is liberty. I would rather have 
free institutions, with many inconsistencies and con- 
flicts, than the yoke and the spirit of bondage. But 
however Presbytery may have been abused to pur- 
poses of intolerance, it is not in its own principles 
oppressive. While contending in the preceding para- 
graphs that elders should have rule, I have not con- 
troverted the true liberty of the church. I have 
defended the only system by which true liberty can 
be preserved, that of popular election and represen- 
tation. Only some are to judge, but they are to be 
set to judge by Christian suffrage. The judges are 
to be chosen by the people, and are to form a con- 
vention small enough to judge calmly and dispassion- 
ately, and yet large enough to defend the weak 
against the strong, and keep at bay the aggressions 
of anarchy on the one hand, and despotism on the 
other. That is the truest freedom which affords the 
strongest guarantees for impartial and upright deal- 
ing ; and if these are best to be had by an aggrieved 
individual from a large and miscellaneous assemblage, 
the students of government have strangely erred in 
all their principles, reasonings, and deductions. I 
admit that sessions, presbyteries, and all such bodies, 



CHURCH BY PRESBYTERS. 



95 



should enter into office through a Christian suffrage. 
On no other footing do I, or can I, defend their pre- 
sidency. The right of the people to choose their 
office-bearers we hold to be most sacred and inalien- 
able: "Whereof the Holy Ghost is also a witness 
unto us;" for appointments to office in the apostolic 
age were either directly by the call of God, or in- 
strumentally by the call of the church ; and when 
the former has been withdrawn, and is no more ac- 
cessible, the latter is alone scriptural, and comes to 
us with all the force of a pattern and a law. 

Election of rulers, then, should lie with the mem- 
bers of the church, and be unfettered in every element 
and aspect ; and, if it be so, that election secures, and 
not only secures, but constitutes liberty. What is 
the palladium of political citizenship ? It is repre- 
sentation. The keenest reformer asks nothing more 
than to be fairly represented ; and it would be strange, 
indeed, if the palladium of civil liberty were the oc- 
casion and implement of ecclesiastical domination. 
Some have objected that elders, in being placed on 
the same footing, as to rule, with ministers, cease to 
be representatives, because ministers hold office from 
Christ, and are responsible, not to the church, but to 
its Head, for the discharge of their functions. This 
objection is more specious than solid. There are, no 
doubt, points of difference between civil and ecclesi- 
astical representation. The members of the church 
are not at liberty to institute within it what offices 
they please, or to dispense with any which their 
divine Master has appointed. Persons filling these 



96 



ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE 



offices may not take the popular will for the supreme 
rule, or imagine that they hold office merely to give 
that will effect. If, then, it be understood by repre- 
sentation that office-bearers are merely to echo the 
sentiments and fulfil the wishes of their constituents, 
we must acknowledge that neither ministers nor 
elders are in such a sense representatives. But this 
definition would be extreme even in secular relations, 
for it would reduce parliamentary representation to 
mere delegation, and leave no room for intrepid and 
self-denying conscientiousness. That spiritual func- 
tionaries, when freely elected, and forming ecclesiasti- 
cal assemblies, are representative so far as to secure 
the benefits of representation to the church, appears 
in many particulars. Protestants are generally agreed 
that the commission of Christ was given to his church ; 
and all, whether ministers or elders, who exercise 
functions included in that commission, are, in this 
view, the church's representatives. These office- 
bearers are further elected by Christian suffrage. In 
the case of elders, they are chosen by the people from 
their own number. While acting for the church, they 
have a manifest interest to please the church, in so 
far as duty will permit them. And, finally, these 
freely chosen councils are numerous enough to check 
individual tyranny, and yet sufficiently select to ex- 
clude anarchy. An obscure church member supposes 
himself aggrieved. In seeking redress, he might have 
little hope from a minister whom he had offended, 
and as little from an excited throng, swayed by a dic- 
tator or a demagogue. But he brings his case before 



CHURCH BY PRESBYTERS. 



97 



chosen judges — mostly chosen from the people, as 
well as by the people — expressly appointed to con- 
duct these matters — having a character to keep or 
lose in the mode of settling them — the ornaments 
of their station — whom any court or country would 
think eligible as jurymen. If even they be swayed 
by personal or local prejudices, he can carry his cause 
to a larger and more disinterested tribunal, just as 
freely elected. This is representation, and this is 
liberty — the liberty of states, the liberty of churches, 
the only liberty which truly consists with the being 
of society. " Nations have become free," says Dr 
Yaughan, " in proportion as they have been able to 
give power to the representative principle, along with 
the other elements of society, and only in that pro- 
portion. The representative principle may rarely 
appear to be all that it should be., But without it 
nothing is as it should be. It may not seem to be 
perfect, but it is the only power that has proved 
effectual, permanently, to diminish the evils which 
must otherwise blight and destroy humanity without 
end. It may have its defects, its faults, its revolting 
abuses ; but it precludes greater evils, and brings an 

amount of good which nothing else can bring 

If a nation [or a church], therefore, is to possess a 
system of liberty, the nation [or church] must rea- 
lise it, and realise it through the medium of a repre- 
sentative government."* These are the words of 
an eminent Independent; but whether they plead 
more for Independency or Presbytery, I leave the 

* Congregationalism, p. 29. 

Gr 



98 



ON THE GOVERJJMENT, ETC. 



reader to determine. Dr Wardlaw sometimes utters 
like sentiments as I have cited from Dr Vaughan. 
At page 340, he praises the British Constitution as 
giving us civil liberty. I invite him, with all respect, 
to consider, that, without popular representation, the 
popular element which he so highly and justly eulo- 
gises would be speedily and utterly annihilated. 



PART IV. 



ON THE DISTINCTION OF TEACHING 
AND EULINGr ELDEES. 

CHAPTER L 

The Question stated. 

It is conceded by those with whom I am now reason- 
ing, that churches should have Presbyters or Elders. 
Some, however, maintain that all elders should be 
preaching elders, that is, pastors, in the technical 
sense of the term. It is the doctrine of Presby- 
terians generally, that churches, besides elders who 
preach, should have elders who do not preach, but 
confine themselves to the work of superintendence. 
Though all elders rule, those who are appointed to 
rule only are, for the sake of distinction, called riding 
elders. Dr Wardlaw characterises " this subject as 
being one of the great turning points of the contro- 
versy between Presbyterians and Independents." 
But Dr Wardlaw knows that in former times Inde- 
pendents highly approved of ruling elders ; and this 
will abundantly appear before my argument is con- 
cluded. Here I shall introduce only a few sentences 



100 



ON THE DISTINCTION OF 



from the writings of Dr Thomas M'Crie, showing 
that the article of a ruling eldership was not anciently 
a party question : " It would appear that these elders 
were not only approved of by the earliest English 
Independents during their exile in Holland, but that 
they existed in their churches ; for we are informed 
by Hoornbeek, that one of their principal objections 
to the continental Presbyterians was, that they 
appointed these elders only from year to year, and 
not for life. 'Propter mutationem Presbyteniorum 
apud nos annuam, qui juxta ipsos debent esse per- 
petui.'* They were approved of by Dr Owen, who 
has furnished one of the best and most able vindica- 
tions of the office of these elders that ever was 
published, f and who, even as he is quoted by Mr 
Orme (Append., p. 515), seems to express his regret 
to his church in London that they wanted these 
office-bearers. They are asserted by Mr Cotton J to 
nave been instituted by Christ, and are represented 
as having been established very generally in the Ameri- 
can churches. The same, too, is the doctrine of 
Goodwin. § And it is observed by the Westminster 
Independents, that ' the Scripture says much of 

* This was the practice, for a long time, of the French and 
Dutch churches. See, too, Altare Damascen., p. 927 ; Summa 
Controv., p. 767. 

According* to the First Book of Discipline, new elders and 
deacons were to be elected every year, and the practice con- 
tinued in many congregations down to a very late period. See 
JScotfs Register of the Kirk Session of Perth, MS., Adv. Lib. 

+ Book on the Gospel Church. 

i Way of the Churches of Christ in New England, pp. 13-35. 
g Catechism on Church Government, p. 1 9. 



TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 



101 



two sorts of elders, teaching and ruling, and in some 
places so plain, as if of purpose to distinguish them; 
and that the whole reformed churches had these different 
elders/"* f I am now to defend the office of ruling 
elder, by arguments drawn, in no small measure, 
from such writings as those of Owen, Goodwin, and 
Cotton ; and I will leave it to the candour of the 
reader, after carefully pondering them, to say 
whether it would be to the disadvantage of modern 
Independents to revert to the principles of their 
venerated forefathers. 



CHAPTER II. 
The distinction pleaded for has its foundation in facts. 

We naturally expect that churches will have members 
qualified to direct their affairs, who would not be 
qualified to deliver public instruction, and that these 
men should have positions assigned them correspond- 
ing with their gifts, and be appointed directors or 
rulers, but not preachers. 

Dr Wardlaw urges the plea of " naturalness " in 
favour of the distinction of elders and deacons. 
The charge of churches naturally divides itself, he 
contends, into the two departments of spiritual and 
secular oversight. But spiritual oversight is not less 

* Reasons against the Third Proposition concerning Presby- 
terial Government, pp. 3 and 40. 
t The Miscellaneous Writings of Dr M'Crie, pp. 490, 491. 



102 



ON THE DISTINCTION OF 



naturally divisible into ruling and teaching functions. 
Wherever an important cause has to be advanced, 
men to speak and men to guide are equally in requi- 
sition. Is the traffic in slaves detested, and is a 
British public invoked to put it down ? — then public 
meetings are held; the best speakers who can be 
had are engaged to address these assemblages; 
boards of direction are formed to take charge of 
petitions, and to ply the legislature ; and very likely 
the speakers are appointed members of these boards, 
in consideration of their office, services, and character. 
But when was it ever known that all the hearers 
were made directors, or that the direction was con- 
fided to the speakers alone ? In such cases, it is at 
once seen that the work, to be well conducted, must 
be in the hands of a select agency ; and the conclu- 
sion is just as speedily reached, that individuals who 
could not have spoken three continuous sentences in 
the presence of a multitude, may yet be far better 
fitted than the speakers themselves to turn to prac- 
tical account the desirable impression which their 
speeches have produced. Thus, in the walks of 
philanthropy, the working of a beneficent measure 
is not retained by the crowd, neither is it committed 
to one or two oratorical debaters; but a board of 
management is appointed, and in that board the 
eloquent and the practical members sit side by side, 
having the same privileges and the same powers. It 
is superfluous to demonstrate how unlike this pro- 
cedure is to Episcopacy on the one hand, and to 
Independency on the other — to the exclusive rule of 



TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 



103 



bishops and the universal rule of church members — 
and how closely analogous to the appointment of 
an eldership, in which the minister or public speaker 
is included. 



CHAPTER III. 

Teaching and Ruling Elders are distinguished in Scripture- 
Full consideration of Rom. xii. 6-8 ; Cor. xii. 28 ; and 1 Tim. 
v. 17. 

The New Testament indicates, in various passages, 
that, while all elders were rulers, only some of them 
taught publicly, so that a distinction existed among 
them of teaching and ruling elders. 

In his Epistle to the Romans, Paul says, " Having, 
then, gifts, differing according to the grace that is 
given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy ac- 
cording to the proportion of faith ; or ministry, let 
us wait on our ministering; or he that teacheth, on 
teaching ; or he that exhorteth, on exhortation ; he 
that giveth, let him do it with simplicity ; he that 
ruleth, with diligence ; he that showeth mercy, with 
cheerfulness/' * That the apostle, in this language, 
points out a number of distinct offices, appears plainly 

* "E%ovrt$ £s %a,pl<r/Aa,ra, 7ca.ru, rnv %xptv <rhv 1>ofe7<ra,v hf^tv ^ia\- 
(popot, uri Trpocp'/irtiocv, zctra. rhv oivuXoyiocv <rns vr'nrnus* uri ^taxo- 
viocy, Iv <rr. c^ioczovia,' iIti o %3a(TKcov } \v tyi %il>GC(rxa,\icc* urs o 
vrocpu,xa.\&>v } iv <r»j vra.fctx.Xrio'ir o fiarotSihov;, Iv ocrXorvirr o vrpoi- 
ffrocfjczvos, iv fffoulri' o iXtav, Iv tXecpomru- — (Rom. Xli. 6—8.) 



104 



ON THE DISTINCTION OF 



enough from the connection. He exhorts, in the third 
verse, that no one " should think of himself more 
highly than he ought to think ; but to think soberly, 
according as God has dealt to every man the measure 
of faith." No one was to exalt himself above his 
brethren, as possessing higher gifts than they. The 
faith exercised in performing duties, or working 
miracles, was the most important element in them ; 
and as this faith refers all to divine favour, it would, 
in the measure of it, produce sobriety of thought as 
to personal attainment. The apostle continues — 
" For as we have many members in one body, and 
all members have not the same office ; so we, being 
many, are one body in Christ, and every one mem- 
bers one of another." Each member of the body, it 
is here reasoned, has a distinct office ; but none of 
them is so independent of the rest that it may glory 
over them. They are one body ; and if, therefore, 
one member should disparage others, it would, in vir- 
tue of this relation, be disparaging itself — it would 
be dishonouring the whole, of which it formed part. 
Each member is to be honoured, not by degrading 
other members, but by executing effectively its own 
particular work. " Having, then," the apostle pro- 
ceeds, "gifts, differing according to the grace that 
is given to us, whether prophecy," &c. No candid 
reader, I think, can follow this train without perceiv- 
ing that the persons spoken of are here represented 
as having distinct offices, like the members of the 
body, and are cautioned against making the difference 
between them an occasion of vain-glorious strife. 



TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 



105 



If it be so, " he that ruleth" is a member of Christ's 
mystical body, holding a distinct office — an office 
which may be held separately from other offices ; and 
he ought not, in consequence of any views entertained 
as to its relative importance, either to despise others 
or to be despised by them. 

It is no objection to this interpretation, that we 
cannot now define with clearness or certainty all the 
offices mentioned. An attempt has been sometimes 
made to discriminate completely their respective pro- 
vinces. One hypothesis which has been proposed is, 
that the first two terms in the apostle's enumeration 
(prophecy and ministry) are general heads, and that 
under one or other of these all the particulars which 
follow must be classified. Prophecy is supposed to 
have for its subdivisions " teaching" and " exhort- 
ing;" while ministry is subdivided into "giving," 
" ruling," and " showing mercy." If this exposition 
be at all just, the ruler, instead of being confounded 
with the teacher, is placed in a separate registry. 

Yarious attempts, which I am not careful to con- 
fute at length, have been made to evade the force of 
this passage. The apostle has been said to speak of 
gifts, and not of offices. In the immediate context we 
find both words used ; and they are so with marked 
propriety, inasmuch as gifts qualified the recipients 
for office, and the offices themselves were gifts, both 
to the persons clothed with them, and to the church 
benefited by them. Does office then cease to be office 
because it may be viewed in the light of a boon ? 
The apostle has been alleged by others to speak of 



106 



ON THE DISTINCTION OF 



ruling one's family. There is here an important ad- 
mission, thai ruling in the strict sense of the term is 
intended ; but when the subject of the whole passage 
is the church, how can an individual word be under- 
stood of domestic superintendence ? - 

Dr Wardlaw says, " The whole passage might be 
interpreted as a simple direction respecting the spirit 
and manner in which the duties of prophecy, of 
ministry, of exhorting, of giving, of ruling, and of 
showing mercy, ought to be fulfilled without design- 
ing to express any distinctive appropriation of each of 
these to a particular official class." * This exposition 
is not accordant with the illustration drawn by the 
apostle, in the context, from the human body. The 
corporeal functions, besides being exhibited as fitly 
fulfilled, are assigned to their respective organs ; we 
have " a distinctive appropriation of each" office " to 
a particular" member. But, says Dr Wardlaw, "if 
the principle of interpretation must be that of official 
distinction ; then let it, in this sense, be consistently 
carried out. And if it be so carried out, a Presby- 
terian can have no more right to assume (as, from 
the power of habitual association, he may be apt to 
do) that 'he that teacheth' is a ruler as well as a 
teacher, than another has to assume that ' he that 
ruleth' is a teacher as well as a ruler. So far as the 
fair exegesis of this passage goes, the teacher is as 
distinct from the ruler, as the ruler is from the 
teacher."f 

Here it is supposed that teaching and ruling do 
* Congreg. Indep., p. 194. f Ibid., p. 196. 



I 

TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 107 

exhibit official distinction. On that supposition, I so 
far agree with Dr Wardlaw as to admit that, if this 
were the only passage treating of these departments 
of office, we might imagine just as readily that 
teachers only taught, as that rulers only ruled. But, 
as Dr Wardlaw himself has ably shown, all public 
teachers are declared in other parts of Scripture to be 
also rulers, and so to combine the two departments 
of duty in their appointment; and if we were, in 
the absence of such proof, to assume the converse to 
be true, and to hold that all rulers are also public 
teachers ; then, be it observed, we should have here 
two descriptions of one class of persons, having pre- 
cisely the same engagements. While, if we under- 
stand that rulers only ruled, then teachers, though 
rulers, are still distinguished by their teaching, and 
a sufficient ground is plainly afforded for a discri- 
minative classification. 

The views now expressed have had the concur- 
rence of eminent men of all religious parties. Peter 
Martyr, a distinguished Italian reformer, who, on 
the invitation of Edward YL, became afterwards 
professor of divinity at Oxford, having cited the 
words, " He that ruleth with diligence," proceeds, 
" Although I doubt not that there were many rulers 
in the church, yet, to confess the truth, this appears 
to me to be most aptly understood of elders, not, 
indeed, of those who presided over the dispensation 
of word and doctrine, but of those who were given 
as assistants to pastors. These, as being prudent, 
zealous, and pious men, were chosen from the laity. 



108 



ON THE DISTINCTION OF 



Their business was to take charge principally of 
discipline — to see what every one did — and in every 
house and family to afford aid, as it was needed, 
whether for the mind or for the body. For the 
church had its elders, or so to speak, its senate, who 
consulted about things as the time demanded. Paul 
describes this sort of ministry, not only in this place, 
but also in his first epistle to Timothy ; for he thus 
writes, 6 Elders are worthy of double honour, espe- 
cially they who labour in word and doctrine/ By 
which words he seems to intimate, that there are 
some elders who teach and propound the Word of 
God ; and that there are others who, while they do 
not this, nevertheless preside in the church as pres- 
byters or elders." * 

Dr Thomas Goodwin, one of the Westminster As- 
sembly of Divines, who ranks with the most learned 
Independents of the seventeenth century, says, in 
commenting on the 12th chapter to the Komans, and 
more especially the 8th verse, " Though to rule is 
a pastor's office as well as an elder's, yet the elder 
is more especially said to rule, because he is wholly 
set apart to it. It is his proper calling, which 
he is wholly appointed to mind, and in a special 
manner. ..... Though the superior (officer) in 

common performs the same work with the inferior ; 
yet the inferior is set apart to it wholly, which the 
other is not, but to some other of a higher kind, 
by reason of intending which he cannot so fully 
and wholly intend the other ; and, therefore, it is 

* Loci Communes. Class, quar. cap. i., p. 746. Lond. 1583. 



TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 



109 



observable, that speaking of a ruler's office in ruling, 
he says, Let him do it with diligence, for that is his 
work which he is to mind ; and there will be enough 
of it to fill his hands." * 

The Eev. Thomas Hooker, a celebrated Indepen- 
dent pastor of New England, in his " Survey of 
Church Discipline," resolutely defends the ruling 
elder's place. He declares that Eom. xii. 7 gives 
its testimony to this truth, where all these offices are 
numbered and named expressly . f 

Dr Davidson says of " him that ruleth," " Could 
he not have been a bishop or elder who devoted 
himself to the department of governing, because he 
had talents for it, leaving the preaching of the word 
to those who excelled in preaching ? Surely this 
idea is probable, as it is consistent with less obscure 
passages which allude to elders." J It is here ad- 
mitted by Dr Davidson, that " he that ruleth " may 
be naturally understood of elders who in fact ruled 
only, though he claims for them the right to have 
also preached. This doctrine, of men having been 
appointed to preach who were incompetent for the 
duty, and by whom it was in consequence neglected, 
will be considered afterwards. Enough for the 
present that Dr Davidson speaks of it as " surely 
probable " that the elder spoken of did not preach, 
and had not talents for preaching, and was in practice 
a ruling elder. 

* The Government of the Churches, book vi., chap. 8. 

t Quoted by Dr Miller— Office of the Ruling Elder, chap. 7. 

t Ecclesiastical Polity, p. 192. 



110 



ON THE DISTINCTION OF 



A similar passage occurs in 1 Cor. xii. The 
apostle there says, verse 28 : " God hath set some in 
the church : first, apostles ; secondarily, prophets ; 
thirdly, teachers ; after that miracles ; then gifts of 
healing, helps, governments, diversities of tongues/' * 
We have here an enumeration of the offices, ordinary 
and extraordinary, subsisting in the primitive church ; 
and among these, express and separate mention is 
made of " governments." In the preceding verses 
the apostle censures all jealousies and feuds about 
the endowments possessed, and the places occupied, 
by different members of the church. He draws 
argument and illustration, as in the epistle to the 
Eomans, from the complex membership and yet 
harmonious action of the human body— one bodily 
organ need not glory over another, for each is hon- 
oured or dishonoured in all the rest : " Whether one 
member suffer, all the members suffer with it ; or one 
member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. 
Now, ye are the body of Christ, and members in 
particular. And God hath set some in the church : 
first, apostles," &c. Is it not perfectly plain that 
the ecclesiastical offices and the bodily members are 
exhibited in this connection as equally distinct, and 
as having equally little cause for relative boasting ? 
And if so, governments, that is, governors, hold a 
distinct office, which may be filled separately. " Are 
all apostles ? " (the inspired author proceeds) " are 

* Kat ovs pzv thro o ®ios Iv <ry \xx,X'/ifftu. Wfwrov dtfotrroXovs, 



TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 



Ill 



all prophets? * This language marks yet more em- 
phatically the demarcation of the offices before 
mentioned. Does every officer fill every office ? 
No : each office has its own officer. The higher 
office, indeed, includes the lower, but the lower 
does not include the higher; for, as Dr Goodwin 
remarks, "that which is common to a superior officer 
with the inferior, may yet be made a proper differ- 
ence of that inferior officer ; " * and, as there are 
prophets who are not apostles, and teachers who are 
not prophets, so there are governors who are not 
any one of the three ; and who, nevertheless, should 
be contented and faithful in the situation assigned 
them. Dr Wardlaw says, " Helps and governments 
are the two items in the list from which the con- 
clusion [in favour of ruling elders] is drawn. The 
one is made to signify deacons, and the other ruling 
elders. And I think this is just as likely to be the 
true interpretation as any other, perhaps the most 
likely — understanding ruling elders, however, not 
in the Presbyterian sense of elders, whose office it 
was to rule apart from teaching, but of bishops, 
whose office included both instruction and rule." 
Dr Wardlaw here allows that governments are most 
likely to be ruling elders, only he will have them 
to be also teaching elders. It is a strong objection 
to this exposition, that teachers, whom Dr Wardlaw 
most reasonably identifies with preaching bishops, 
[" all teachers were pastors," f] had appeared already 

* Government of the Churches, book vi., chap. 8. 
t Congreg. Indep., p. 183. 



112 



ON THE DISTINCTION OF 



in the enumeration here given, and needed not to 
be reintroduced. We accept this acknowledgment 
that governments are " most likely ruling elders," 
but we see no reason to combine with ruling what 
had a prior and separate place in the list. And, 
indeed, to append the teaching here is to make the 
ruling elders the same as the teachers, and so to 
charge on the apostle a vain repetition. 

To weaken oar conclusions derived from this pas- 
sage, Dr "Wardlaw quotes comments from many 
authors, to show how variously it has been inter- 
preted. And what passage of Scripture relating to 
government or doctrine has not received conflicting 
interpretations ? If, however, an appeal is to be 
made to authorities, then it cannot be denied that 
the passage has been understood as we understand 
it by many able and disinterested judges. The Eev. 
Herbert Thorndike, of the Anglican church, says, in 
his " Discourse of Eeligious Assemblies : " " There is 
no reason to doubt that the men whom the apostle 
(1 Cor. xii. 28, and Eph. iv. 11) called doctors or 
teachers, are those of the presbyters who had the 
abilities of preaching and teaching the people at their 
assemblies ; that those of the presbyters icho preached 
not, are called here by the apostle governments. . . . 
There were two parts of the presbyter's office, viz., 
teaching and governing ; the one whereof some 
attained not, even in the apostles' times."* I give 
the passage as quoted by Dr Miller, in his excellent 
work on the "Euling Elder," because I have not 

* Discourse of Religious Assemblies, chap, iv., p. 117. 



TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 



113 



access to the original at present. I find, however, 
in other works of Mr Thorndike, that he is very- 
angry with those of his own day who made like use 
of his observations, as Dr Miller and others have 
made since. In his " Right of the Church," &c, he 
says, " Myself have the honour to be alleged, for one 
that approve lay elders, even in that place of that 
very discourse where I answer the best arguments 
that ever I heard made for them, only because I said 
then, as now, that we are not bound to think that all 
presbyters preached during the apostles' times," &c. * 
To settle the dispute with this learned prelatist, we 
concede to him that there should be no lay elders, 
for all elders are spiritual office-bearers ; t and he 
concedes to us, as does also Dr Davidson, first, that 
every church should he ruled by a body of elders ; and, 
secondly, that we are not bound to think that all the 
presbyters preached in the apostles' times. Points of 
difference remain, but with so much in common we 
are not disposed to quarrel. The learned Pareus, a 
German divine of the era of the Reformation, says, 
in his commentary on this passage : " He so desig- 
nates, undoubtedly, the elders who presided over 
discipline. For the primitive church had its senate 
who preserved good morals among the people, while 
the apostles and teachers were left free to preach. 
The apostle indicates this plainly enough (1 Tim. v. 
* Chap, iii., p. 127. 

f Dr Wilson, in his "Primitive Government of Christian 
Churches," constantly stigmatises ruling elders as being lay- 
elders, and founds on this misnomer a large proportion of his 
reasoning against them. Dr Davidson follows the same course. 

H 



114 



ON THE DISTINCTION OF 



17), where he specifies two kinds of presbyters. 
These governors, then, were not princes or praetors 
armed with the sword, but presbyters, excelling 
others in gravity, experience, authority, chosen from 
amidst the assembly with the church's consent, who 
aided or relieved the pastors in administering dis- 
cipline." 

Dr Whitby, a learned Episcopalian, tells us that 
the elders among the Jews were of two sorts : first, 
such as governed in the synagogue ; and, secondly, 
such as ministered in reading and expounding their 
Scriptures and traditions. The second class he pro- 
nounces to have been the most honourable, and adds, 
" Accordingly the apostle, reckoning up the offices 
God had appointed in the church, places teachers 
before governments," (1 Cor. xii.) * In these words, 
governing is allowed to be a distinct office from 
teaching. 

The celebrated Dr Owen, one of the brightest 
ornaments of Independency, says, in his treatise on 
Worship and Discipline, by way of question and 
answer : " Question 31. Are there appointed any 
elders in the church whose office and duty consist 
in rule and government only ? Answer. Elders not 
called to teach ordinarily, or administer the sacra- 
ments, but to assist and help in the rule and govern- 
ment of the church, are mentioned in the Scripture. 

(Eom. xii. 8 ; 1 Cor. xii. 28 ; 1 Tim. v. 17.) 

Besides, that some light in this matter may be taken 
from the church of the Jews, wherein the elders of 

* See Commentary on 1 Tim. v. 17. 



TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 



115 



the people were joined in rule with the priests, both 
in the Sanhedrim and all lesser assemblies, there is 
in the gospel express mention of persons that were 
assigned peculiarly for rule and government in the 
church, as 1 Cor. xiii. 28 ; and it is in vain pretended 
that those words, ' helps/ 6 governments/ do denote 
gifts only, seeing the apostle expressly enumerates 
the persons in office, or officers, which the Lord 
Christ then used in the foundation and rule of the 
churches as then planted." 

The most decisive passage in favour of ruling elders 
remains to be considered. Paul says, " Let the elders 
that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, 
especially they who labour in word and doctrine." * 
On all sides, it is admitted that the word double, as 
here used, simply denotes ample or abundant. It fre- 
quently occurs in Scripture in the same sense. Of 
Jerusalem it is said, " She hath received double for 
all her sins." f The sentiment is not that Jerusalem 
had been afflicted twice as much as was necessary 
or suitable, but that she had been amply chastened 
for her transgression. So double honour does not,, in 
the passage under consideration, denote twice as much 
honour as some other parties received, but simply 
much or adequate honour. Elders who ruled well 
were to be liberally honoured. And what kind of 
honour were they to get ? The word honour admits 
of being rendered pay or wages, and this interpreta- 

* Ol xccXeus t rpo&a'rcuTi$ vrpiffGurzpoi ^i^krjg Tigris cil^iovQ'&aiffu.ity 
fjcaXiffra. ol nortiavris Iv \oyca kcc.) ^i^acfKOiXia. — (1 TlLCU V. 17.) 

f Isa. xL 2. 



116 



ON THE DISTINCTION OF 



tion is rendered the more probable here by the allu- 
sions afterwards made to the feeding of the ox, and 
the rewarding of the labourer. The office-bearers 
in the primitive churches were generally poor men ; 
and when they sacrificed time and substance in rul- 
ing the church well, it is very conceivable that Paul 
should require the loss to be fully made up to them 
by the societies for whose sake the sacrifice was made. 
He did not, as Drs Wardlawand Davidson seem to sup- 
pose, arbitrarily limit pay to preaching, but enunci- 
ated the general principles, that they who " have sown 
spiritual things should reap carnal things ; " * that all 
who " wait at the altar are partakers with the altar ; 99 f 
and that the Scripture saith, " Thou shalt not muzzle 
the ox that treadeth out the corn ; and the labourer 
[whatever be his department of labour] is worthy of 
his reward." J Many elders are still in circumstances 
which would render such compensation both equit- 
able and advantageous. At the same time, some able 
expositors, irrespectively of the question now agi- 
tated, regard the tone of the passage as lowered by 
the explanation of honour as meaning money. They 
explain it of respect, and understand the apostle to 
say, that the office-bearers mentioned ought to be 
honoured in a way becoming them, as the ox and the 
labourer have their appropriate remuneration. Our 
Independent brethren consider the pecuniary view 
the more favourable to them, and I will assume it to 
be correct. The apostle on this supposition claims 
a sufficient pecuniary acknowledgment for elders who 

* 1 Cor. ix. 11. f 1 Cor. ix. 13. i 1 Tim. v. 18. 



TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 



117 



rule well. But let it be observed that he does not 
claim it for all of them equally. He requires it espe- 
cially for them who labour in the Word and doctrine. 
If any simply ruled well, they were to get liberal 
remuneration ; but if any, in addition to ruling well, 
also laboured in the Word and doctrine, they were 
to receive a specially ample salary, since they devoted 
themselves more entirely to the service of the church 
— spending and being spent for its sake. This is the 
simple and palpable import of the apostle's words; 
and so understood they draw a line of demarcation 
between elders who restricted themselves to ruling 
well, and others who associated with ruling the 
labours of teaching. The primitive churches had 
elders who ruled, and among these some elders who 
also taught, as Presbyterian churches have in our 
own times. Various attempts have been made to 
invalidate this conclusion. 

Dr Wardlaw thinks that the word translated rule 
does not here signify to rule only, but is a general 
expression for ministerial duty, comprising the func- 
tions alike of instruction and government. The first 
part of the verse, then, simply denotes that faithful 
ministers are to be amply recompensed ; and as for 
the latter part of the verse, Dr Wardlaw thinks that 
its import is intensive, and that it claims special libe- 
rality towards presbyters, who are not simply faithful, 
but who are excessively laborious. In support of this 
exposition, Dr Wardlaw pleads that the word trans- 
lated labour, in the last clause, denotes emphatically 
to be laborious. This, he tells us, is its proper mean- 



118 



OX THE DISTINCTION OF 



ing : " It does not denote work merely, but labour, 
and labour of an exhausting kind and degree." * An 
examination, however, of the passages of the Xew 
Testament, in which the word occurs, does not bear 
out this criticism. It usually denotes, not extraordi- 
nary labour, but labour simply considered. When 
intensity of toil is to be expressed, some additional 
epithet is introduced for that purpose. " I sent you 
to reap that whereon ye bestowed no labour/' j Our 
Lord did not mean to say that the apostles were sent 
to reap produce on which they had bestowed no 
extraordinary labour, but which had cost them no 
toil whatever. This is evident from what follows : 
" Other men laboured, and ye are entered into their 
labours." u I have showed you all things," says Paul, 
" how that so labouring ye ought to support the 
weak." 1 " Let him that stole steal no more : but 
rather let him labour, working with his hands." § In 
these passages labour has plainly the sense we attach 
to it, when we speak of men labouring for their bread, 
and call them labourers ; and, in the latter, Paul ex- 
pressly explains labour by common manual occupa- 
tion : " Let him labour" — how? " working with his 
hands." " Greet Mary," says Paul, " who bestowed 
much labour on us." || If the word labour had de- 
noted extraordinary effort of itself, there would have 
been no need to conjoin with it the epithet much to 
give it force. The same remark applies to the 12th 
verse of the same chapter, where it is said, " Salute 

* Congreg. Indep., p. 212. f John iv. 38. 

i Acts xx. 35. I Eph. iy. 28. || Rom. xvi. 6. 



TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 119 



the beloved Persis, which laboured much in the 
Lord/' In these and many other passages the word 
is descriptive of duty only, and does not of itself 
mark excessive labour. The expression, " To rule 
well/' is acknowledged to denote praiseworthy labo- 
riousness, or, as Dr Wardlaw says, " superior fidelity 
and zeal ; " and hence Paul claims for all so ruling 
double or ample honour. To speak of still greater 
laboriousness than what was confessedly "superior" 
— creating by intensity, which far exceeded superio- 
rity, a still more special claim on the liberality of the 
church — would be a remarkable climax, rearing su- 
perlative above superlative, and would require very 
emphatic phraseology indeed. But we have in the 
clause under consideration nothing of the sort. We 
have the word labour simply, without any such epi- 
thets as the same writer elsewhere introduces, when 
he designs to convey the idea of severe toil. Hence 
we conclude that the distinction made by the apostle 
does not respect the intensity of labour, but the kind 
of it. To rule well entitled the ruler to ample 
honour, but those rulers who were distinguished from 
others by the special employment of labouring in word 
and doctrine were specially entitled to generous con- 
sideration. 

I have supposed, in the preceding remarks, that 
the word rendered to " rule" might denote ministerial 
duty in general. Dr Wardlaw says, " It is suscepti- 
ble of a more general or a more special signification, 
according to the circumstances and connection in 
which it is found. It may denote the general duty 



120 



ON THE DISTINCTION OF 



of "being over" the church, considered as compre- 
hensive of both the departments of teaching and rul- 
ing. It is equally appropriate when used of either ; 
or, if it happens to be introduced where the former 
of the two departments is otherwise mentioned, and 
is thus used distinctively, it may denote more speci- 
fically the latter, the department of ruling." * 
\ I With all respect for Dr Wardlaw, I must controvert 
his assertion that the word translated rule is equally 
appropriate when used either of government or teaching. 
Its more usual and proper meaning is to govern, as 
any Greek lexicon will testify ; and it should be so 
understood, unless there be very strong reason to the 
contrary. But the reason is here all on the side of 
the ordinary signification. The department of teach- 
ing is, in the language of Dr Wardlaw, " otherwise 
mentioned/' namely, at the close of the verse. The 
word translated to rule " is there used distinctively/' 
and should be held to " denote more specifically the 
department of ruling." Our former conclusion is 
hence confirmed, that Paul claims especial honour for 
a special department of service. All elders ruling the 
church well, deserved well of the church ; but they 
who superadded to ruling the distinctive labour of 
teaching, brought the society instructed by them 
under special obligations. 

Dr Wardlaw thus paraphrases the passage : — " Let 
the elders (presbyters, bishops) who fulfil well — with 
superior fidelity and zeal — the duties of their over- 
sight, be counted deserving of the more ample recom- 

* Congreg. Indep., p. 206. 



TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 121 



pense ; especially those of them who give themselves 
assiduously to the department of the ministry of the 
gospel, — who * labour in word and doctrine/ "* 

The element of which Dr Wardlaw is desirous to 
get rid, is not here eliminated. The labouring in 
word and doctrine, mentioned in the close, is surely 
no part of the faithful and zealous oversight noticed 
at the commencement ; else why give us the same 
thing a second time, and to what novel element could 
the " especially" then have regard? We have plainly 
in the paraphrase, as in the passage, two sections of 
elders discriminated, and the discriminating circum- 
stance is the work of teaching, with which one section 
of them are charged. It would seem as if Dr Ward- 
law must, in homage to the text, and in contradiction 
to his own comments, distinguish between oversight 
in the sense of rule, and that department of the 
ministry of the gospel which they have who labour 
in word and doctrine. 

The import of the passage, in relation to the ques- 
tion now debated, depends mainly on the meaning 
attached to the term especially. I have said else- 
where f that I accept the exposition of it given by 
Dr Wardlaw. His language is, " According to what 
may, I think, be called invariable usage, it must be 
understood as representing those who are described 
in the latter part of the verse, as comprehended 
under the more general description in the former, 

* Congreg. Indep., p. 217. 

t See Ruling Eldership of the Christian Church, third 
edition, p. 21. 



122 



ON THE DISTINCTION OF 



not as a distinct class of persons, but a select portion 
of the same class, distinguished by a specified par- 
ticularity."* Dr Wardlaw here tells us that, from a 
general class described, "especially" singles out a 
select portion distinguished by a specified particu- 
larity. In this instance, elders are the general class 
comprehending all presbyters ; from this general class 
the word " especially" singles out, in the latter part 
of the verse, those among them who were distin- 
guished by the "specified particularity" of public 
teaching. Dr Wardlaw cites some very appropriate 
examples : "But if any man provide not for his own, 
and specially for those of his own house, he hath 
denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." \ 
" Here, 6 those of his own house,' " says Dr Wardlaw, 
" those belonging to his own family, are a specifically 
distinguished portion of the more comprehensive de- 
signation 6 his own/ which may be understood of his 
relations at large." J This example is clearly in 
favour of my argument. The phrase " his own" de- 
scribes relations at large. The term " specially" 
marks off from these relations some distinguished 
from the rest by the peculiarity of being of his own 
house. So far all relations are identified, as they are 
all a man's own ; so far they differ, as only some of 
them belong to a man's own house. In like manner, 
faithful elders are so far identified, as they all rule 
well ; and so far they differ, as only some labour in 
the word and doctrine. Surely no illustration could 
be more to my purpose. Paul says, " We trust in 

* Congreg. Indep., p. 213. + I Tim. v. 8. J P. 214. 



TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 



123 



the living God, who is the Saviour (or preserver) of 
all men, specially of those that believe." * " Those 
that believe," says Dr Wardlaw, " were included 
among the ' all men/ but distinguished from the rest 
by their faith." Quite correct ; and so pastors are 
included among elders, but distinguished from the 
rest by public teaching. If specially" can distin- 
guish believers from infidels, surely it may suffice to 
discriminate elders who rule from elders who rule 
and teach. " On no other principle," says Dr "Ward- 
law, " can that adverb (especially) have its legitimate 
signification — the signification which the idiomatic 
use of it in the original language has fixed as its ap- 
propriate import, except on the principle that the 
6 elders whe rule well/ in the beginning of the verse, 
are the same order of office-bearers of which those 
in the end of it, who ' labour in word and doctrine/ 
are a still more select description, adding to the dis- 
tinguishing excellence of the former a farther dis- 
tinguishing excellence of their own — those elders, 
namely, who to eminence in ruling joined laborious- 
ness in teaching," &c. j* In accordance with this 
language, to which I readily subscribe, as fully con- 
ceding and clearly enunciating the distinction I have 
contended for, the members of faithful sessions are 
all one order of office-bearers as rulers ; the faithful 
ministers in these sessions are a still more select 
description, adding to the distinguishing excellence 
of other elders the further distinguishing excellence 
of laboriousness in teaching. The delineation thus 
* 1 Tim. iv. 10. + Congreg. Indep., p. 215. 



124 



ON THE DISTINCTION OF 



given by Dr Wardlaw seems to me to express, in 
most fitting words, the identical conclusions which I 
draw from the passage. 

Dr Davidson expressly admits that this text dis- 
tinguishes elders who simply ruled well from elders 
who publicly taught. He quotes from me the follow- 
ing comments : " These words could suggest to an 
unbiassed reader only one meaning, — that all elders 
who rule well are worthy of abundant honour, but 
especially those of their number who, besides ruling 
well, also labour in word and doctrine. Of course 
the passage so interpreted bears, that of the elders 
who rule well, only some labour in word and doc- 
trine ; that is, there are ruling elders, and among 
these teaching elders, as we have at the present day/' 

Having cited this passage, Dr Davidson says, 
" Few would object to this reasoning, understood in 
its obvious sense ; for a distinction is manifestly im- 
plied between those elders that rule well, and those 
who labour in word and doctrine." * He speaks of 
Presbyterians as " proving that some elders in the 
primitive churches ruled, while others preached." 
" That," he adds, " is a position too manifest to be 
called in question. Other parts of the New Testa- 
ment would warrant that conclusion, had the text in 
the epistle to Timothy been wanting." f The entire 
position contended for is here conceded, so far as 
regards practice. As we have teaching and ruling 
elders, it is admitted that the primitive churches also 
had preaching elders and elders who ruled without 

* Ecclesiastical Polity, p. 183. f Ibid., p. 186. 



TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 



125 



preaching ; and if we are right in fact, where do we 
err ? Dr Davidson thinks we are wrong in making 
any official distinction between elders. They should 
all get the same appointment, though eventually they 
may devote themselves to different occupations. He 
contends that " the nature of the destination is merely 
such as arises from the possession of various talents, 
directed to the discharge of different duties, while all 
have an equal right to perform the same functions." * 
This interpretation appears to me to be full of unlike- 
lihood and difficulty. Would modest and conscien- 
tious men accept a solemn appointment to preach the 
gospel, when they knew that they had not " talents" 
for this duty, and had no serious purpose to attempt 
the discharge of it ? If incompetent men were willing 
to be appointed preachers, would the apostles have 
affixed the seal of their approbation to any such pre- 
sumption? Under the guidance of the apostles, it 
seems, a number of men were solemnly set apart, not 
simply to rule, for which they were qualified, but also 
to administer the word, for which they were not 
qualified — a duty which they were neither competent 
for nor expected to discharge ; and for such men, 
living in the neglect of important functions with 
which they had been solemnly invested, Paul asked 
from the church ample honour ! Is it not far more 
conceivable — and the question is one of rational in- 
terpretation — that so many were appointed to teach 
publicly as were needed and fitted for public teach- 
ing ; and that they who did nothing more than rule, 

* Ecclesiastical Polity, p. 183. 



126 



ON THE DISTINCTION OF 



had nothing more included in their commission? 
Facts are here exponents of principles ; what faithful 
men did, shows us what was given them in charge. 
But the facts of the primitive church are confessedly 
in our favour : only some elders taught — the rest 
restricted themselves to government; and so it is 
now in our Presbyterian congregations. 

The contempt which Dr Davidson expresses for 
ruling elders is rendered more extraordinary by his 
admission, that, in the first instance, elders were ap- 
pointed only or mainly to rule. He says, " All the 
circumstances that have relation to the point conspire 
to show that the elders were chosen in the first in- 
stance mainly for government." * He elsewhere cites 
with approbation the statement of Neander, that 
" ruling and governing (tfgoarrivai and %u/3sgvai/) evi- 
dently exhaust what belonged from the beginning to 
the office of presbyter or bishop, and for which it was 
originally instituted." f Surely elders who were not 
appointed to preach, but simply to rule or govern, 
were, in the strictest sense of the words, ruling elders ; 
and how vain is it then for Dr Davidson to speak of 
Calvin as having invented the office ! Nor does Dr 
Davidson deny that teaching elders were associated 
with ruling elders. He thinks that some, having the 
gift of teaching, came to be admitted into the elder- 
ship, and that these parties thenceforward both ruled 
and taught officially. " When the charism (or en- 
dowment) of teaching," he says, " became an ordinary 
gift, such as might be attained by many Christians 

* Eccles. Polity, p. 149. f Ibid., p. 193. 



TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 



127 



in the exercise of their abilities, it is probable that 
these teachers were often taken into the college of 
elders, and thus formally constituted officers."* Here 
was a college of ruling elders, and among them were 
teachers. Our churches have, in like manner, col- 
leges of elders, and among them teachers ; are we 
not then adhering to the apostolic pattern? 

The only evasion I can think of is, that the primi- 
tive churches at a later period were otherwise consti- 
tuted — that elders appointed in the first instance to 
rule only, were eventually appointed always to rule 
and preach. But where is the record of any such 
changes? and where the likelihood that the Christian 
church of the apostolic times resembled a sea of sand, 
shifting its proportions and outline with all fluctuating 
breezes ? If it were so, then the apostles sanctioned 
nothing so much as versatility — as a fickle and time- 
serving expediency: they have "set us conflicting 
examples in relation to the same point of duty, and 
have, in important matters, so turned their back on 
their own practice, that if we do as they at one period 
confessedly did, our conduct merits to be attacked 
with asperity, or hooted at in derision ! I fear that 
Dr Davidson has allowed himself to give too much 
heed to German speculations, in lending his respected 
name to such volatile principles. If it be allowed 
that the primitive churches, under the direction of 
the apostles, had elders appointed to rule only, and 
elders appointed both to rule and teach, I am inclined 
" to stand fast in the apostles' doctrine" under any 

* Ecclesiastical Polity, p. 148. 



128 



ON THE DISTINCTION OF 



circumstances, and at all hazards. " Those things, 
which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, 
and seen in me, do : and the God of peace shall be 
with you/' * 



CHAPTER IV. 

That the primitive Elders were not all Teaching Elders, appears 
from their number. 

It is a very unfair statement of our argument to refer 
to the passages already considered as if they consti- 
tuted the entire scriptural proof for the office of ruling 
elder. The evidence now to be adduced is not less 
scriptural, and, though somewhat indirect, not less 
pertinent, and not less decisive. If each of the primi- 
tive churches had been presided over by one elder, 
the inference would have been strong that he united 
the functions of ruling and teaching ; but if it appear 
that every church, however small and poor, had a 
company of elders, the supposition of these elders 
having been all public instructors is attended with 
obvious and insuperable difficulties. 

This view of the matter has presented itself strongly 
to some intelligent Congregationalists, and they have 
exerted themselves to controvert the fact of a plurality 
of elders in the primitive churches as the best method 
of evading our disrelished deductions. Dr Bennet, 

* Phil. iv. 9. 



TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 129 



in his " Theology of the Early Christian Church/' a 
learned and valuable work,* says, " The language of 
Scripture often leads to the conclusion, that it was not 
the design of Christ to require a plurality of bishops 
in every church ; for this office is mentioned in the 
singular, when the deacons are spoken of in the 
plural. (1 Tim. iii. 2, 8.) The argument of the 
apostle, derived from the father of a family, as 
Clemens Alexandrinus observes, leads to the same 
conclusion : ' A bishop must rule well his own house, 
having his children in subjection with all gravity; 
for if a man know not how to rule his own house, 
how shall he take care of the church of God V Here 
a single ruler is supposed to preside in the church, 
as in a family. In the Eevelation, the seven stars 
are the angels, as Origen observes, or presidents of 
the seven churches. The term pastor supposes one 
shepherd over one flock." j 

In this passage, the supposition of each of the pri- 
mitive churches having had a plurality of elders is 
controverted, and an attempt is made to show that 
Scripture favours the one-elder system now common 
with Independents. What, then, are the defences of 
this position ? We are told that this officer is men- 
tioned in the singular, when the deacons are spoken 
of in the plural ; and we are referred for an example 
of this to 1 Tim. iii. 2, 8. In the second verse of 
that chapter it is said, "A bishop must be blameless f 

* Delivered as a course of lectures under the auspices of the 
Committee of the Congregational Library ; published in 1841. 
t Page 223. 

I 



130 



ON THE DISTINCTION OF 



in the eighth verse it is said, " Likewise must the 
deacons be grave." Does not this look as if there 
were to be one bishop and a number of deacons? 
Such is the argument of Dr Bennet ; but it surely 
rests upon a very small circumstance. If we read 
the first verse, we easily perceive why one bishop is 
mentioned in the second. The apostle says in the 
former, " This is a true saying, If a man desire the 
office of a bishop, he desireth a good work." Here 
it is plain enough why one bishop is specified : " If 
a man desire the office of a bishop." Could the 
apostle have said, " If a man desire the office of two 
bishops, or a college of bishops ? " It is surely enough 
that one man desire the office of one bishop. When 
the apostle, then, had used the singular in the first- 
verse, was it not most natural and proper to continue 
it in the second, and to say, " A bishop then must be 
blameless ? " Again, Dr Bennet argues that the com- 
parison instituted by the apostle between ruling one's 
own house and taking care of the church of Grod, 
implies that there is to be one ruler in the church, as 
there is in the family. The danger of thus extend- 
ing the emblems of Scripture beyond the exact use 
which Scripture makes of them, could easily be shown. 
But, in this case, the task is superfluous. When the 
phrase " church of God" is used, as it is here, without 
any locality being mentioned, it denotes, not a frac- 
tional society of Christians, but the church universal. 
Surely in this church there is more than one subor- 
dinate office-bearer ; and to it, therefore, the criticism 
of Dr Bennet cannot apply. That the apostle is to 



TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 131 



be so understood in this connection, is farther evident 
from what he says in the fifteenth verse of the same 
chapter : " But if I tarry long, that thou mayest 
know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the 
house of God, which is the church of the living God, 
the pillar and ground of the truth." What the 
apostle had before called the " church of God," he 
here calls the " church of the living God ; " and when 
he represents it, moreover, as the " pillar and ground 
of the truth," we see that he speaks of the faithful 
collectively, over whom there are many office-bearers. 
Once more, Dr Bennet tells us, that in the Revela- 
tion the seven stars are the angels or presidents of 
the seven churches. By this he means to prove, that 
each church had a single president. But one of the 
seven churches was Ephesus ; and Dr Bennet admits, 
that, " as the church at Ephesus had more than one 
elder, the apostle addresses them in the plural as 
bishops." # What, then, becomes of the angelic argu- 
ment ? Who was the one president at Ephesus, when 
the church in that city had more than one elder ? 
By the author's own showing, we have elders at 
Ephesus, and among them a presiding elder. So it 
is not in any Independent church ; but so it is exactly 
in Presbyterian churches, where elders who rule are 
presided over, in their sessional assemblages, by one 
elder, who both rules and teaches. Einally, Dr 
Bennet argues that the term " pastor " supposes one 
shepherd over the flock. This argument is not hap- 
pier than the rest. One flock may have a plurality 

* Theology of tfee Early Christian Church, p. 222. 



132 



ON THE DISTINCTION OF 



of shepherds. The term " shepherd " in the plural is 
associated with the term " flock 99 in the singular, very 
often in the sacred volume. " Neither did my shep- 
herds/' says God by Ezekiel (xxxiv. 8-10), " search 
for my flock, but the shepherds fed themselves, and 
fed not my flock: therefore, ye shepherds, hear 
the word of the Lord; thus saith the Lord God, 
Behold, I am against the shepherds ; and I will re- 
quire my flock at their hand/' &c. In addressing 
the Ephesian elders, Paul exhorts them " to take heed 
unto themselves, and to all the flock." So that we 
have here one flock, and a number of shepherds ; and 
how then does the emblem of a shepherd suppose 
singleness of superintendence ? Bishop Stillingfleet, 
after quoting this passage, says, it is " observable, 
first, that the body of Christians in Ephesus is called 
the flock of the church, and not the several flocks 
and churches over which God hath made you bishops. 
Secondly, that all those spoken to were such as had 
a pastoral charge of this one flock/' * 

On a review, then, of these arguments, I feel war- 
ranted to say that they utterly fail of their object, 
and that the. language of Scripture never leads to 
the conclusion of its not being the design of Christ 
to require a plurality of bishops in every church. 
But there is much evidence leading to a conclusion 
directly the reverse. It is admitted that there was 
a close resemblance between the Jewish synagogues 
and the first Christian churches ; and we know that 
every synagogue had at the fewest three elders. Dr 

* Irenicum, p. 347, 



TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 133 



G-oodwin says, " They (the synagogues) used to have 
three at least, that a major vote might cast it among 
the rulers."* Dr Neander says, " Since the appoint- 
ment of presbyters in the Christian church entirely 
corresponded with that of presbyters in the Jewish 
synagogue, at least in their original constitution, so 
we may conclude, that if a plurality of elders stood 
at the head of the synagogue, the same was the case 
with the first Christian church." f If this reasoning 
be objected to as analogical and inferential merely, 
there is no want of direct scriptural testimony to the 
same effect. We read of elders in each of the churches 
of Jerusalem, Ephesus, and Philippi. Paul, in ad- 
dressing the Hebrews, says, " Obey them that have 
the rule over you." J James exhorts him who is sick 
to " call for the elders of the church." These are 
individual cases ; but we have more comprehensive 
examples on record. Paul says to Titus, " For this 
cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in 
order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders 
in every city, as I had appointed thee."§ Nor is this 
the only instance where such comprehensive language 
occurs. We read of Paul and Barnabas, that " they 
ordained elders in every church." || Here it is not 
said " in every city," but " in every church ; " so that 
no room is left for dubiety. The early Christian 
fathers, in speaking of churches, always suppose each 
of them to have a number of elders, so often as they 

* Government of the Churches, book ii., chap. 4. 
•f Planting of the Christian Church, vol. i. p. 41— Note. 
t Heb. xiii. 17. \ Titus i. 5. 

II Acts xiv. 23. 



134 



ON THE DISTINCTION OF 



give us any intimation on the subject. Dr Owen 
says, " The pattern of the first churches constituted 
by the apostles, which it is our duty to imitate and 
follow as our rule, constantly expresseth and declares 
that many elders were appointed by them in every 
church. There is no mention in the Scripture, no 
mention in antiquity, of any church wherein there 
were not more elders than one, nor doth that church 
answer the original pattern where it is otherwise."* 
The proof, then, we hold to be complete and decisive, 
that each of the primitive churches had, not one elder, 
as the Independent churches have now, but a number 
of elders, as we see exemplified in our Presbyterian 
polity. 

The more recent works of Independent writers 
wisely cede the position, that the primitive churches 
had each a plurality of elders. Dr Halley, in his 
Congregational Lecture, maintains that this charac- 
teristic was common to the Christian churches and 
the Jewish synagogues, f Dr Vaughan, in his trea- 
tise on Congregationalism, says, " The existence of 
such a practice in all the early churches whose usage 
in this respect is come down to us, is a remarkable 
fact, and enough to justify suspicion as to the wisdom 
of our own prevalent usage." Dr Wardlaw assents 
to my declaration, that every church had bishops and 
deacons for its fixed and abiding office-bearers. $ He 
elsewhere observes more expressly, " I must candidly 
say that the evidence for the fact of a plurality of 

* True Nature of a Gospel Church, chap. 7. 
t See page 63. J Congreg. Indep., p. 178. 



TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 



135 



elders or bishops in the apostolic churches is of the 
two sides the stronger/' * Dr Davidson says, " No- 
thing seems to us more certain, than that there was 
a plurality of elders in the primitive churches." f 

If the elders of a primitive church were all public 
teachers, where was the room for that exhaustive 
labour in teaching which Dr Wardlaw supposed the 
term " especially" to indicate ? If one church had a 
number of ministers, each taking his proportion of 
work could preach only occasionally ; and surely 
an occasional sermon could not impose " labour to 
fatigue." " What would have been the use," I for- 
merly asked, in my treatise on the Ruling Eldership, 
" of so many stated instructors ? Had they been all 
ministers of the word, and had twelve, or six, or so 
few as three of them, been placed over a handful of 
people, how would they have found room for the 
exercise of their gifts ? There would have been here 
such a waste of means as we nowhere find in a divine 
administration. Our Independent brethren allow of 
no elders but teaching elders ; and what is the con- 
sequence ? With very few exceptions, each of their 
churches has but one elder, where each of the primi- 
tive churches had a council of them. A fact of this 
kind is very significant, and deserves to be well pon- 
dered. Each of our Presbyterian churches has a 
number of elders ; each of the primitive churches had 
a number of elders ; but our Independent friends, 
who plead so earnestly for scriptural institutions, 
have in this instance departed from apostolic prece- 

* Congreg. Indep., p. 226. t Eccles. Polity, p. 357. 



136 



ON THE DISTINCTION OF 



dent, and, even in the case of their largest churches, 
have substituted one elder for a college of them, 

Should they not doubt their interpretation 

of Scripture, when it brings them into collision with 
scriptural facts ? Should they not reason with them- 
selves : One teaching elder suffices for a large congre- 
gation ; therefore they cannot have been all teaching 
elders of whom the apostles assigned certainly more 
than one, and likely a considerable number, to the 
most diminutive of Christian assemblies ? " 

Dr Wardlaw, having quoted this passage, says, 
" We ' suffer the words of exhortation/ We make 
no pretensions to infallibility. Nor are we less liable 
than our neighbours to fall into inconsistencies."* 
Elsewhere Dr Wardlaw says, " The inconsistency of 
any body of men with their own principles, is but a 
pitiful proof against the principles themselves."! I 
grant that persons may have good principles and not 
practise them, and that the erring practice is no valid 
argument against the good principles. But Dr 
Wardlaw himself argues, page 89, from inconsistency 
as indicating the lessons of experience. And if nu- 
merous churches, independent of each other, and all 
venerating Scripture, take up a principle that leads 
them all away from universal primitive usage, there 
is room to suspect that a principle found to be un- 
workable is not scriptural, and that it is not the 
practice so much as the principle that is in fault. I 
am not urging any personal charge of inconsistency 
against our Independent brethren, but only asking 
* Congreg. Indep., p. 221. t Page 210. 



TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 



137 



them to consider of what their experience is sugges- 
tive. If the notion of all elders being public teachers 
throws them on a system of eldership so arduous and 
unworkable that a plurality, which in the beginning 
was always attained, is now almost never attained, 
surely this result casts doubt on the hypothesis, and 
creates a presumption that the primitive churches 
had that system of teaching and ruling elders which 
prevails with us, and which is still found equally 
practicable as was a collegiate eldership in the first 
century. 

The passage of my volume on the Eldership which 
I have just mentioned as quoted and commented on 
by Dr Wardlaw, is attacked with much vehemence 
by Dr Davidson.* He is quite indignant at the idea 
of one public teacher being considered sufficient for 
any church. Since I was speaking of Independent 
practice, and of what it indicated, his anger at me 

• falls really on his party. 

What says Dr Wardlaw on the subject ? "I have 

' been amused," he observes, " sometimes at certain 
churches pluming themselves on their strict confor- 
mity to apostolic practice in having their plurality of 
elders — and teaching elders too — while the plurality 
is the one concern, not the amount of actual efficiency 
with which the ends of the office are answered ; for 
it has just been a plurality, and no more ; and the 
two composing that plurality, instead of giving them- 
selves wholly to the duties of their ministry, have had 
their mind and their time occupied, from Monday to 

* Eccles. Polity, p. 359. 



138 



ON THE DISTINCTION OF 



Saturday, with the engagements of their secular 
calling. With how much greater effectiveness are 
the ends of the office likely to be served by the un- 
divided labours of one devoted pastor, than by the 
limited and necessarily distracted attendance upon 
their official functions that can be given by any two 
whatever, so circumstanced ! " * By such representa- 
tions, Dr Wardlaw convinces me that two public 
teachers are not needed for one moderately-sized 
church, and leads me to infer that a large proportion 
of the primitive elders must have been ruling elders, 
since I cannot suppose the apostles to have provided 
numerous instructors, so clearly shown by Dr Ward- 
law to be supernumerary. If a single church has 
many pastors, the utmost that can be expected is 
that one of them, or two of them, will be adequately 
educated and tolerably supported ; and under such 
circumstances, the uneducated elders will soon shrink 
from unequal competition, and leave the higher ser- « 
vices to superior qualifications. In other words, the 
many elders will be such as we have — some of them 
thinking it enough to rule well, while others will 
labour in the word and doctrine. On these grounds, 
I feel warranted in saying with confidence, that Drs 
Wardlaw and Davidson, unless they are to part with 
an educated ministry altogether, cannot give effect 
to their own principles without passing into our prac- 
tice ; and that when they shall have persuaded the 
Congregationalist churches to act on their acknow- 
ledgment, that a plurality of elders is the rule of 

* Congreg. Indep., p. 225. 



TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 139 



Scripture, they will assimilate our religious denomi- 
nations, and will prove the most successful Christian 
unionists in these honoured days of love and brother- 
hood. 

But Dr Davidson formally disproves the office of 
ruling elder, and I may seem to do him injustice, 
unless I meet the objections which he sets in array 
against it. " The following considerations," he says, 
" disprove the office of lay eldership : — 1. It implies 
that a distinction between the laity and clergy was 
made in the apostolic period." In my treatise on the 
Eldership, which Dr Davidson honours with his 
strictures, I disclaimed the advocacy of lay eldership. 
It is a spiritual eldership for which I plead. Will 
Dr Davidson maintain that in the apostolic period no 
distinction was made between unofficial church mem- 
bers and their spiritual office-bearers ? Unless he do 
so, his first objection is wholly nugatory. " 2. Elders," 
he says, " is the appropriated appellation of bishops in 
other places of the New Testament. It is therefore 
agreeable to usage to understand it of bishops alone 
in the present text." I admit that all elders were 
bishops in the primitive churches ; for these words, 
" elder" and "bishop," are used interchangeably in the 
New Testament. On the other hand, Dr Davidson 
admits that all bishops were not in fact public teachers, 
and had not the requisite " talents " for such occu- 
pation. " Some elders," he assures us, " ruled, while 
others preached. That is a position too manifest to 
be called in question. Other parts of the New Tes- 
tament would warrant that conclusion, had the text 



140 



ON THE DISTINCTION OF 



in the epistle to Timothy been wanting/' I am per- 
fectly willing that all elders be called and considered 
bishops, while the distinction of teaching and ruling 
bishops is admitted also, and declared too manifest to 
be called in question. If it be still said that the dis- 
tinction was practical, and not official, I still reply, 
that I esteem it a great matter to have the practice 
of the primitive churches, and that I am disposed, 
moreover, to regard primitive practice as expository 
of primitive principles, and to believe that elders who 
only ruled, and who were qualified only to rule, had 
only ruling assigned them in their appointment. "3. 
Stated and ordinary bishops," says Dr Davidson, " are 
elsewhere said to rule." I admit that all elders should 
rule. The question is, whether some should confine 
themselves to ruling ; and that question is not toucheol 
in this third objection. " 4. Double honour, of which 
the elders who rule well are counted worthy, must 
mean double maintenance, as the succeeding context 
shows. But in no passage of Scripture do we find the 
least intimation or command towards contributing to 
the temporal support of an order of men who do not 
teach or preach in public. Such contributions are 
due to pastors and bishops — to speaking, not to silent 
elders This is saying and unsaying to perfection. 
Of the elders for whom double honour or pay is 
claimed, Dr Davidson admits that u some ruled, while 
others preached;" and yet he declares now that 
double honour was demanded for speaking elders only. 
We have Dr Davidson's admission that some elders 
had not aptitude for teaching, and were wise enough 



TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 



141 



not to attempt things too high for them. Were these 
elders, if they ruled faithfully, to be denied compen- 
sation ? No, says Paul, as Dr Davidson understands 
him ; let those elders ruling well be amply recom- 
pensed. " 5. In enumerating the qualifications of 
elders, the apostle Paul says of all, without exception 
or distinction, that they should be apt to teach, 
(hihaytriTtoi.) But if some had no concern in teaching, 
this qualification was absolutely worthless." In thus 
expressing himself, Dr Davidson has not a little the 
appearance of taking the apostle to task for appoint- 
ing men to be elders who had not the requisite 
" talents" for teaching, and then saying of them all, 
without exception or distinction, that they should he 
apt to teach. Some of them, by Dr Davidson's ad- 
mission were inapt teachers from natural defect. 
Why, if they should have been apt, did Paul appoint 
them, knowing their inaptitude ? When Dr David- 
son acknowledges that some taught publicly, and 
some did not, he is equally concerned as I am to 
understand that aptness for teaching, which is de- 
manded of all elders in a varied sense, as applying 
either to public instruction or to those more private 
modes of teaching which are scarcely less important 
than pulpit teaching itself. I now leave the reader 
to judge whether Dr Davidson is warranted in say- 
ing, "These arguments [which have just been an- 
swered] are sufficient to overthrow the hypothesis of 
ruling elders." His objections cannot be brought into 
harmony with each other, without admitting every- 
thing essential to my position. Certainly they have 



142 



ON THE DISTINCTION OF 



little weight against his acknowledgments, that Paul 
in his epistles to Timothy and elsewhere, plainly dis- 
tinguishes between elders who only ruled, and elders 
who both ruled and taught ; that the primitive 
churches had elders whose functions were exhausted 
by ruling and governing, and that with these elders 
were associated preaching presbyters in the same 
college, session, or consistory. 



CHAPTER V. 

The distinction of Teaching and Ruling Elders has been very 
generally acknowledged by Christian authors and Christian 
denominations down to a recent period. 

Here we naturally begin by appealing to the Chris- 
tian fathers. As theologians, they are not entitled to 
the idolatrous deference with which they are sometimes 
regarded. But their testimony is occasionally of weight 
in relation to matters of fact ; and all we seek to ascer- 
tain from them here, is whether there were such office- 
bearers as ruling elders in the early Christian church. 
The first witness I cite is Justin Martyr, whom I do 
not remember to have found adduced by other writers 
who defend the elder's office. Indeed, he has been 
quoted with confidence on the opposite side. That 
Christian philosopher, who was converted about the 
year 132, and who suffered martyrdom about 163, 
has occasion in his pleadings for the persecuted Chris- 
tians, to give repeated descriptions of their worship; 



TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 143 



A resolute opponent of the ruling eldership thus 
translates one of these passages : " Upon that, which 
is called the day of the Sun, there is an assembling 
together of all of the respective cities, or residing in 
the country ; and the recollections of the apostles 
[the gospels], and the writings of all the prophets, are 
read as long as time permits ; when the reader has 
ceased, he who presides (6 <7r%ozarwg) by a discourse 
(buz Xoyov) admonishes and exhorts to the imitation of 
things that are good. We then all rise up together, 
and offer prayer, and as already mentioned, when the 
prayer is ended, bread is brought, and wine and wa- 
ter. And he who has the first place (6 <?Pos<frooc) again 
prays and gives thanks, according to his ability (ogyi 
dwafiig aurw), and the people add their approbation, 
saying, Amen. And a distribution and delivery of 
the things, upon which thanks have been given, are 
made to all, and sent to those who are absent, by the 
deacons." He then speaks of the lifting of a collec- 
tion for widows, orphans, prisoners, and strangers, — 
which is deposited <xaga rw Tgostfrwr/, "with the 'presi- 
dent!' This paragraph is introduced by the late Dr 
Wilson of Philadephia, as one of innumerable proofs, 
that ruling elders, in our sense of the terms, were 
unknown to the Christian fathers. He tells us, " that 
Justin Martyr has here a second time described the 
officers of a Christian church employed in the most 
solemn act of public worship, the eucharist ; and 
again he has said, they were the ^osorwg, scil, <r£s<r- 
fivrsgog, presiding elder and the deacons." * 

* Primitive Government of the Churcli, p. 19. 



144 



ON THE DISTINCTION OF 



If the author's theory had been, that every church 
had one pastor and a number of deacons, the quota- 
tion would have appeared more to his purpose. But 
he maintains " that though one person presided, every 
presiding presbyter had his co-presbyters or bishops, 
for such existed in all the churches, and have appeared 
in those of Smyrna, of Philippi, Corinth, and Koine." 
He agrees with us, then, that each church had a num- 
ber of presbyters, and quotes a passage from J ustin 
Martyr, which bears that only one of these admini- 
stered the word and sacraments. Surely this au- 
thority, instead of being against us, is wholly on our 
side. If, in the opinion of Dr Wilson, the elders had 
presided by turns, there would have been room for 
alleging, that now one conducted worship and now 
another, and that they were all public teachers. But 
he looks on the presidency as having been a perma- 
nent distinction, and tells us, that in the primitive 
ages " it was accounted one characteristic of the or- 
thodoxy of a church, that it could show a line of 
presiding presbyters or bishops from the days of the 
apostles." * The amount of this testimony therefore 
is, that each church had a company of elders, and 
that one of these presided at meetings of his bre- 
thren, and conducted the public worship of the Lord's- 
day. 

This testimony of Justin Martyr is in every view 
highly important. He is a very early writer. He 
was a man of extensive and accurate information. 
He professedly described the condition and worship, 

* Prim. Gov. of the Church, p. 92. 



TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 



145 



not of a single congregation, but in general, of Chris- 
tian churches. And Dr Wilson admits, " that when 
he wrote his two apologies for the Christians which 
were within fifty years of John, there w^ere only pres- 
byters, whereof one in each church was the presiding 
presbyter, who administered the eucharist ; and dea- 
cons who carried it to the people." * DrWilson should 
have said, that one in each church preached, prayed, 
and administered the eucharist ; for in the passage 
quoted from Justin all these duties are equally 
ascribed to one functionary. Each church had then 
a number of elders, of whom one only conducted pub- 
lic worship. What evidence, not inspired, could be 
more decisive of the question at issue ? 

If it be said, that more than one elder certainly 
preached in some of the churches ; the reply is easy, 
that some churches have two or more ministers still, 
and along with them a company of ruling elders. 
And even though it could be made good that pres- 
byters in general began to preach after Justin's days, 
we need not marvel that ambition should show itself 
in this class as in others — that ruling elders should 
become preachers, when preaching elders were be- 
coming prelates, and deacons themselves were arro- 
gating the functions of the holy ministry. 

Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, who embraced Chris- 
tianity in 246, and suffered martyrdom in 258, has 
many distinct allusions to this class of office-bearers. 
His 29th epistle, for example, is addressed to the 
elders and deacons; and the manner in which he 

* Prim. Gov. of the Church, p. 227. 



146 



ON THE DISTINCTION OF 



there speaks of the elders, has led his commentator, 
Bishop Fell, to remark, in a foot-note, that " St 
Paul appears to have distinguished (1 Tim. v. 17) 
anciently between ruling elders and teachers."* 

Origen, who was born at Alexandria, a.d. 185, 
gives an account (Adv. Celsum, lib. iii. p. 142, edit. 
Cant.) of church discipline as administered in his 
age. Archbishop Potter, in his " Discourse of Church 
Government," chap, v., thus translates a portion of 
it : " The Christians try and examine as far as 'tis 
possible the very souls of those who desire to be 
their hearers ; they first instruct them privately, and 
when they are found sufficiently disposed to lead a 
good life, they introduce them into a public assembly. 
Here they who have been but lately introduced, and 
have not received the symbol of purification (that is, 
baptism), are assigned to a different place from the 
rest, who have already given full proof of their sin- 
cere resolution to addict themselves wholly to the 
Christian doctrine and way of life. Some of these 
latter are ordained to inquire into the lives and con- 
versations of those who present themselves to be 
admitted, in order to prohibit infamous and vile per- 
sons from coming into their assembly." 

It will be observed, from this passage, that of the 
Christians who were fully proved, some were ordained 
to inquire into the lives and conversations of applicants 

* Epistola xxix. Cyprianus Presbyteris et Diaconibus Fra- 
tribus, Salutem. [Aut modo cum Presbyteris.] Inter Pres- 
byteros, Rectores, et Doetores, olim distinxisse videtur Divus 
Paulus, Epist. 1 ad Tim. c. iv. 17. (A misprint for v. 17.) — 
Bremse, m.dc.xc. 



TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 



147 



for admission. What could be said more character- 
istic of the position and functions of our ruling elders ? 

Hilary, deacon of the church of Koine, who . wrote 
in the fourth century, and whose writings are found 
at present among the works of Ambrose, tells us, in 
his comments on this chapter, that " the synagogues, 
and afterwards the church, had elders, without whose 
counsel nothing was transacted in the church. By 
what negligence it fell into disuse I know not, unless, 
perhaps, by the indolence, or rather by the pride, of 
the teachers, while they alone wished to appear 
something/'* Here the counselling and teaching 
office-bearers are clearly distinguished ; the antiquity 
of ruling elder is explicitly asserted ; and while the 
office is represented as falling into disuse, the writer 
ascribes the suppression of it to indolent or tyrannical 
bishops, who wished to rest or reign undisturbed by 
associates. Some have tried to torture the words of 
Hilary into another meaning, but their testimony to 
a ruling eldership has been owned by eminent men 
of all parties — by Bucer, Peter Martyr, Calvin, 
Whitgift, Zanchius, &c., &c. 

Augustin, in the fourth century, makes frequent 
mention of this class of officers — to the extent, at 
least, of showing that he and many other pastors had 
elders who did not preach associated with them in 
the superintendence of their flocks. 

* " Synagoga et postea ecclesia seniores habuit quorum sine 
consilio nihil agebatur in ecclesia. Quod qua negligentia ob- 
soleverit nescio, nisi forte doctorum desidia aut magis superbia, 
dum soli volunt aliquid videri."— (Commentaria Sancti Ambro- 
sii, 1 Tim. v. 1.) 



148 



ON THE DISTINCTION OF 



Eegarding the testimonies of some of these Fathers, 
as formerly cited by me, Dr Davidson says, " Surely 
if Dr King had known the thorough examination to 
which these quotations [from Cyprian, Origen, and 
Hilary] have been subjected by Rothe and Neander, 
he would have allowed them to sleep undisturbed, 
rather than affix interpretations to them which they 
refuse to bear." 

Dr Davidson has not adduced the reasoning of 
Rothe and Neander on which he lays so much stress, 
and I am not bound to answer a pointless reference. 
I may remind the reader, however, that Neander 
believed elders to have been appointed, in the first 
instance, specifically to ride. He says, " They were 
originally chosen as in the synagogue, not so much 
for the instruction and edification of the church, as 
for taking the lead in its general management." * 

Dr Davidson quotes with approbation his saying, 
that " ruling and governing evidently exhaust what 
belonged from the beginning to the office of presbyter 
or bishop, and for which it was originally instituted." 
When there were elders who only ruled, were there 
no ruling elders ? Surely there must have been, for 
elders who only ruled could be nothing else than 
ruling elders ; and by the united testimony of Neander 
and Dr Davidson this state of things existed from the 
beginning. 

For the legitimacy of the appeal to Cyprian, I 
have cited the acknowledgment of Bishop Fell ; for 
that to Origen, I have given the translation of Arch- 

* Planting of the Christian Church, p. 42. 



TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 



149 



bishop Potter ; for the view taken of Hilary's words, 
I have pleaded the sanction of such men as Peter 
Martyr, who was Professor of Divinity at Oxford, 
and Canon of Christ's Church. The concurrence of 
such men in an interpretation of the Fathers favour- 
able to Presbytery will not be considered either in- 
terested or insignificant. But suppose that Scripture 
and the Fathers were alike to fail us, it would still 
be extraordinary that Dr Davidson could speak of 
Calvin as inventing the ruling elder's office. 

The churches of the Waldenses had ruling elders, 
when sound doctrine and pure discipline, banished 
from the world besides, took refuge in their valleys 
and fastnesses during the Dark Ages. This fact is 
abundantly proved in Blair's history of that interest- 
ing people. " To another book of authority," he says, 
" we must pay particular attention, which is entitled, 
? The Ancient Discipline of the Evangelical Churches 
in the Yalleys of Piedmont.' No writer men- 
tions any copy as dated earlier than 1120."* This 
book of discipline, as contained in Mr Blair's appen- 
dix, has one article concerning pastors, and a distinct 
article concerning elders. Of the latter it says, 
" Rulers and elders are chosen out of the people, 
according to the diversity of the work in the unity of 
Christ." In a separate article on excommunication, 
it says, " But in case all these chastisements produce 
no amendment of life, nor forbearance of evils, Christ 
himself teacheth us how we ought to proceed against 

* History of the Waldenses, by the Rev. Adam Blair, vol. i., 
hook ii., chap. 1 : Twelfth century. 



150 



ON THE DISTINCTION OF 



such an one : if he hear not those, tell it to the church ; 
that is, to the rulers by whom the church is governed 
and conserved."* In relation to those passages, Mr 
Blair remarks, " They had three orders of men above 
their ordinary members : the bishop, or teaching 
elder ; the lay elder ; and the deacon. The existence 
of the second class is clearly expressed in article 4th 
of the foregoing discipline, for they are called rulers 
and elders chosen out of the people." j 

At the time of the Eeformation, when the church 
cast off the accumulated abuses of many centuries, 
and reappeared in all the loveliness of its primitive 
simplicity, the creeds and confessions of almost all 
reformed countries emphatically avowed the divine 
appointment of this office, and exhibited, in vivid 
lights, its high importance to the prosperity of Christ's 
kingdom. It was thus owned by the reformed churches 
of Switzerland, Poland, Germany, Holland, Belgium, 
and France. Even the Church of England is no excep- 
tion. The same convocation which passed the Thirty- 
nine Articles, sanctioned a catechism drawn up by the 
Bev. Dean Nowell, in which the maintenance of disci- 
pline by a ruling eldership is unequivocally advocated. 

In the concluding part of Mr Nowell's catechism, 
the following answer is given as to the best means of 
remedying impure communion : " In well-constituted 
and well-regulated churches, a certain plan and order 
of government, as I have already said, was instituted 
and observed. Elders were chosen, that is, eccle- 



* History of the Waldenses, by the Rev. Adam Blair, vol. i., 
pp. 534-536. t Vol. i., p. 540. 



TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 



151 



siastical rulers, in order to maintain and conduct 
ecclesiastical discipline. To these belonged authority, 
reprimand, and chastisement by censure. These, with 
the co-operation of the pastor, if they knew any who, 
by false opinions, or turbulent errors, or silly super- 
stitions, or a vicious and profligate life, brought pub- 
licly a great reproach on the church of God, and 
could not, without profanation, approach the Lord's 
supper, repelled and rejected such from communion, 
and would not again admit them till they had satis- 
lied the church by public penitence." * In support 
of these views, we are referred, in the margin, to a 
number of texts, and among these, to 1 Tim. v. 17. 

Kespecting this publication, Bishop Randolph says, 
in the preface to the first edition of his Enchiridion, 
" It is another object of the present plan, to show the 
genuine sense of the Church of England, in her ear- 
liest days, both as to the grounds of separation from 
the Church of Rome, and the doctrines which, after 
a long struggle, having entirely emancipated herself 

* "In ecclesiis bene institutis atque nioratis, certa, tit antea 
dixi, ratio atque ordo gubernationis instituebatur atque obser- 
vabatur. Deligebantur seniores, id est magistratus ecclesias- 
tici, qui disciplinam ecclesiasticam tenerent atque colerent. 
Ad hos, authoritas, animadversio, atque castigatio censoria per- 
tinebant : hi, adhibito etiam pastore, si quos esse cognoverant 
qui, vel opinionibus falsis, vel turbulentis erroribus, vel aniii- 
bus superstitionibus, vel vita vitiosa flagitiosaque, magnam 
publice offensionem ecclesise Dei adferrent, quique sine coenae 
Dominicse profanatione accedere non possent, eos a communione 
repellebant atque rejiciebant, neque rursum admittebant, 
donee poenitentia publica ecclesias satisfecissent." — (Noelli 
Catechismus, contained in the " Enchiridion Theologicum " of 
Bishop Randolph.) 



152 



ON THE DISTINCTION OF 



from that yoke, she at length finally adopted and rati- 
fied. For this purpose, my choice has been princi- 
pally directed to such works as had the- sanction of 
public authority, and which may therefore be relied 
on as containing the final and decided opinions of our 
Eeformers, approved of in the general by the church 
at large. ... Of this kind (that is, thus pub- 
licly received) were * Jewell's Apology/ and 4 Xo- 
well's Catechism/ the former of which is said to have 
been published with the consent of the bishops, and 
was always understood to speak the sense of the 
whole church, in whose name it is written ; the latter 
had the express sanction of convocation." 

Since these, then, were the principles of the Eng- 
lish Church, why were they not carried into effect ? 
Bishop Burnet lets us into the secret. He informs us, 
in the preface to the second part of his " History of 
the Beformation/' that " there were many learned and 
pious divines in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's 
reign, who, being driven beyond sea, had observed 
the new models set up in Geneva, and other places, 
for the censuring of scandalous persons, of mixed 
judicatories of the ministers and laity ; and these, re- 
flecting on the great looseness of life which had been 
universally complained of in King Edward's time, 
thought such a platform might be an effectual way 
for keeping out a return of the like disorders." Then 
we are told of certain statesmen who demonstrated to 
the Queen, " that these models would certainly bring 
with them a great abatement of her prerogative, since, 
if the concerns of religion came into popular hands, 



TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 



153 



there would be a power set up distinct from hers, 
over which she could have no authority. This she 
perceived well ; and therefore resolved to maintain 
the ancient government of the church." 

The present churchwardens appear to be the wreck 
of this scriptural order of functionaries. In their 
annual attendance on the visitations of the archdea- 
con, they swear that they will present to that digni- 
tary the names of all parishioners who are notoriously 
immoral.* The oath has become a dead letter J but, 
though inoperative at present, it may be deemed 
commemorative of past realities. 

The earlier Congregational churches also had their 
elders. This was general in America. The earlier 
Independents of New England were English Puri- 
tans, who sought refuge on a foreign soil from the 
convulsions and persecutions of their native country. 
Eor a considerable period, the only work on church 
government at all acknowledged by them as an ex- 
position of their polity, was John Cotton's well- 
known " Book of the Keys." This author assigns the 
government of the church to elders, while he concedes , 
certain privileges to the brethren or private mem- 
bers ; and he also asserts " the necessary communion 
of churches in synods," in order to rectify maladmini- 
stration. "But it was convenient," says Mr C. Ma- 
ther, " the churches of New England should have a 
system of their discipline extracted from the Word of 
God, and exhibited to them with a more effectual ac- 



* Tracts for the Times, 59, quoted in the Plea of Presbytery, 
p. 164— a work which contains much valuable information. 



154 



OX THE DISTINCTION OF 



knowledged and established recommendation." With 
this view, a bill was presented to the " general court " 
in the year 1646, for the calling of a synod, to pre- 
pare a directory of government. 

The synod met at Cambridge (Xew England), and 
produced the famous " Cambridge Platform of Church 
Discipline." TThen this work was finished, "the 
synod broke up with singing the song of Moses 
and the Lamb, in the fifteenth chapter of the Reve- 
lation." 

The platform was presented by the synod to the 
general court which convened it, in 1648 ; and more 
than thirty years afterwards, it was unanimously 
approved of by a synod of all the churches in the 
colony assembled at Boston. What, then, is the 
teaching of this important and venerable document 
on the question at issue? 

Its seventh chapter treats "of ruling elders and 
deacons." " The ruling elder's office," we are there 
told, "is distinct from the office of pastor and teacher : 
the ruling elders are not so called to exclude the 
pastors and teachers from ruling, because ruling and 
governing is common to those with the other : where- 
as, attending to teach and preach the word is peculiar 
unto the former. The ruling elder's work is to join 
with the pastor and teacher in those acts of spiritual 
rule which are distinct from the ministry of the word 
and sacraments." Then follows a very excellent 
summary of the duties of elders. 

The Independents of England witnessed in times 
past to the same principle. Xeal tells us, that " to 



TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 



155 



inform the world of the real principles of the Puritans 
of those times, the Rev. Mr Bradshaw published a 
treatise, entitled, 6 English Puritanism, containing the 
main opinions of the rigidest sort of those that went 
by that name in the realm of England/ which the 
learned Dr Ames translated into Latin, for the bene- 
fit of foreigners."* 

I have the tract itself before me, and shall adduce 
its testimony in its own words. In chap, iii., the 
Independents of those days are alleged to " hold that 
the pastors, teachers, and ruling elders of particular 
congregations are, or ought to be, the highest spiri- 
tual officers in the church." The fourth chapter 
purports to be " concerning the elders," and its open- 
ing section is as follows : " Forasmuch as, through the 
malice of Sathan, there are, and will be, in the best 
churches, many disorders and scandles committed 
that redound to the reproach of the gospel, and are 
a stumbling-block to many both without and within 
the church, and sith they judge it repugnant to the 
Word of God that any minister should be a sole ruler, 
and, as it were, a pope, so much as in one parish, 
much more that he should be one over a whole dio- 
cese, province, or nation, they hold, that by God's 
ordinance, the congregation should make choice of 
other officers, as assistants unto the ministers in the 
spirituall regiment of the congregation, who are by 
office, jointly with the ministers of the word, to be 
as monitors and overseers of the manners and conver- 
sation of all the congregation, and one of another, 

* History of the Puritans, part ii. chap. i. p. 449— 4th edit. 



156 



ON THE DISTINCTION OF 



that so every one may be more wary of their ways, 
and that the pastors and doctors may better attend 
to prayer and doctrine, and by their means may be 
made better acquainted with the estate of the people, 
when other eyes besides their own shall wake and 
watch over them." 

The celebrated Dr Owen, one of the brightest 
ornaments of Independency, has a strong passage on 
1 Tim. v. 17, in his " True Nature of a Gospel 
Church," where he chastises objectors to the office of 
ruling elder with a zealous severity. After copying 
the pithy paragraphs, I have erased them, to give 
another passage, quite as persuasive in itself, from 
another of his works which is less known. In his 
treatise on " Worship and Discipline, by way of Ques- 
tion and Answer," he says, " Question 31. Are there 
appointed any elders in the church, whose office and 
duty consists in rule and government only? Answer. 
Elders not called to teach ordinarily or administer 
the sacraments, but to assist and help in the rule and 
government of the church, are mentioned in the Scrip- 
ture, (Rom. xii. 8; 1 Cor. xii. 28; 1 Tim. v. 17.) 
. . . The words of the apostle to this purpose are 
express (1 Tim. v. 17), ' Let the elders that rule well, 
be counted worthy of double honour, especially those 
who labour in the word and doctrine/ For the 
words expressly assign two sorts of elders, whereof 
some only attend unto rule ; others, moreover, labour 
in the word and doctrine. . . . And besides what is 
thus expressly spoken concerning the appointment of 
this sort of elders in the church, their usefulness, in 



TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 157 



the necessity of their work and employment, is evi- 
dent. For whereas a constant care in the church, 
that the conversation of all the members of it be such 
as becometh the gospel, that the name of our Lord 
Jesus Christ be not evil spoken of, is of great concern- 
ment and importance ; and the pastors and teachers, 
being to give up themselves continually unto prayer 
and the ministry of the word, cannot attend unto the 
constant and daily oversight thereof, the usefulness 
of these elders, whose proper and peculiar work it is 
to have regard unto the holy walking of the church, 
must needs be manifest unto all. But whereas, in 
most churches there is little or no regard unto the 
personal holiness of the members of them, it is no 
wonder that no account should be had of them who 
are ordained by the Lord Christ to look after it, and 
promote it." * 

Dr Doddridge, another eminent Congregationalist, 
says, in commenting on 1 Tim. v. 17, ["especially 
they who labour,"] " This seems to insinuate that 
there were some who, though they presided in the 
church, were not employed in preaching." 

Dr D wight, whom Mr Orme, himself an Inde- 
pendent, characterises as a distinguished American 
divine of the Congregational order, thus writes in 
his " System of Theology" (vol. v. p. 171), " Preach- 
ing is everywhere in the Scriptures exhibited as an 
employment superior to that of ruling. In the pas- 
sage quoted from 1 Tim. v. 17, this truth is decisively 

: * See works, vol. xv, pp. 504, 505. Johnstone and Hunter, 
Edinburgh, 1853. 



158 



ON THE DISTINCTION OF 



exhibited. Here St Paul directs that preaching 
elders should be accounted worthy of more honour 
than ruling elders." 

Later writers of the Episcopalian and Independent 
persuasions have become more chary of eulogising 
the ruling elder's office, as considering it a con- v 
stituent of presbytery, antagonist to their systems. 
Occasional admissions of the same character, how- 
ever, are still to be met with in modern publica- 
tions. 

" In two passages," says the late Dr Arnold 
(Gal. vi. 6, and 1 Tim. v. 17), " he asserts the claim 
of the governors of the church to be maintained by 
the church. In the first, indeed, he 'speaks only of 
such governors of the church as are instructors : 
' Let him that is taught in the word, communicate 
unto him that teacheth in all good things;' — but, 
in the second passage, while he acknowledges the 
especial claim of such, he extends the right to all 
rulers of the church generally, whatever may be 
their particular functions : ' Let the elders that rule 
well be counted worthy of double honour/ " * We 
are told, in this paragraph, that Gal. vi. 6 speaks 
only of such governors as are instructors, and thus 
far differs from 1 Tim. v. 17, which treats of rulers 
generally, including those who are not instructors : 
in other words, the distinction is acknowledged of 
ruling and teaching elders. 

Archbishop Whately says — " The plan pursued by 

* Fragment on the Church, by Thomas Arnold, D.D., chap, 
ii., p. 25. • 



TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 



159 



the apostles seems to have been to establish a great 
number of small, (in comparison with most modern 
churches,) distinct, and independent communities, 
each governed by its own single bishop, consulting, 
no doubt, with his own presbyters, and accustomed 
to act in concurrence with them," &c. * As to the 
mutual dependence, or independence, of Christian 
communities, I am not now called particularly to 
speak : but here is a distinct admission on the sub- 
ject in hand, that, on the plan of the apostles, 
every bishop or pastor consulted his elders as Pres- 
byterian ministers do, and acted in concert with 
them. 

A powerful lay petition has been recently present- 
ed to the Archbishop of Canterbury. It recommends 
that the clergy be increased in number : but that is 
not the only burden of its prayer. " Secondly," it 
says, " provision must be made for a more systematic 
employment of laymen in the exercise of functions 
which do not belong exclusively to the clergy." It 
urges the propriety of " sanctioning and encourag- 
ing the employment of a class of laymen, who, with- 
out altogether abandoning their worldly callings, 
might be set apart, under episcopal authority, to act 
as visitors of the sick, Scripture readers, catechists, 
and the like, in parishes where their introduction 
should be approved of by the parochial clergy." 

" The system of district visiting," say the peti- 
tioners, " and the appointment of lay Scripture 
readers under clerical superintendence, have already 
* Kingdom of Christ, p. 165. < 



160 



ON THE DISTINCTION OF 



been adopted, we believe, with much success, in 
many populous parishes ; but the present state of 
society requires that both these means of usefulness 
should be greatly extended, and brought into more 
immediate connection with our ecclesiastical arrange- 
ments ; for we are fully persuaded that the true 
strength of our church can never be completely 
known until, by some such means, her lay members 
are enabled, under direct sanction and control, to 
take part in the discharge of all those offices which 
are not, by her constitution, restricted to the three 
orders of the ministry." 

The idea of organic change being contemplated in 
this improvement, is emphatically disclaimed in the 
following terms : — " In venturing to urge upon your 
Grace the adoption of these measures, which would 
supply a link much needed between parochial clergy 
and the community at large, we are far from desir- 
ing to make any innovation in our ecclesiastical 
policy. We only seek to restore to full vigour and 
efficiency one of the orders in our church, and to 
promote the appointment of officers already recog- 
nised by ecclesiastical authority, and for which, at 
no period since the Reformation, has the position of 
the church more imperatively called/' 

These are the admissions of modern Episcopalians. 
Our Congregationalist brethren occasionally favour 
us with kindred acknowledgments. In a discourse 
preached at the setting apart of the Rev. John Rey- 
nolds, quoted in an able sermon on the Presbyterian 
eldership, by the late Dr Stewart of Liverpool, the 



TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 161 



late Dr Bogue says : " Congregational churches, in 
general, employ deacons to perform in part the office 
of the elders who were ordained by apostolic autho- 
rity to rule. Presbytery here comes nearest to the 
primitive pattern, though some difference still re- 
mains. Besides the pastor, it has both ruling elders 
and deacons." " To speak," says Dr Vaughan, " of 
one man as being the pastor of a church, including 
from six to eight hundred members, and of a con- 
gregation making much more than double that num- 
ber of persons, is assuredly preposterous. The 
pastoral duty of such a minister must necessarily be 
left in much, very much, the greater part undone, 
and be devolved, if performed in any shape, on a 
number of deacons, w 7 hen they become co-pastors in 
every respect, except that they may not be preachers."* 
Dr Vaughan w r ould prefer a plurality of ministers, 
but he admits that deacons, as a matter of fact, be- 
come in the larger churches co-pastors in every 
respect, except that they are not preachers — in other 
w r ords, they are ruling elders. Let them be called 
what they are, and have all the advantage of know- 
ing expressly their duties, and being solemnly ordain- 
ed to the discharge of them, and the consequent 
benefits will be such that Dr Vaughan may be led 
to admire the theory of a ruling eldership, of wdiich 
he has confessedly got the practice. 

* Congregationalism, p. 189. 



L 



162 



ON THE DISTINCTION OF 



CHAPTER VI. 

Benefits which would result to Independent Churches, and 
to the Methodist Connection, from instituting a Ruling 
Eldership. 

On the grounds which have been stated, I conclude 
that it is the duty of every church to have a com- 
pany of ruling elders. Cougregationalist churches, 
by adopting this polity, would gain these great and 
obvious benefits : — 

First, Ministers of the word, when associated in 
the government of the church with elders who do 
not preach, would have a shared, and consequently 
diminished, responsibility. Congregationalists admit 
that elders are specially entrusted with ruling ; but 
when, as with them, there is only one elder who 
both rules and teaches, this special trust, in resting 
upon one individual, cannot fail, more particularly 
in critical junctures, to be disquieting and oppressive. 
Besides, if the course pursued by the minister give 
dissatisfaction, all the odium recoils on himself, and 
he is placed personally in a false position with the 
people of his charge. Hence alienations, and too 
frequently separations, result from such feuds. The 
case is totally different when the minister, finding a 
difficulty in superintendence thrown in his way, 
consigns the removal of it to the session. There he 
is one of many. What is done is not his act indivi- 
dually or prominently ; and the people, so far from 
being disposed to accumulate blame on his head, are 



TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 163 



glad, so far as possible, to hold him excused, and to 
censure his confederates ; for churches like to think 
well of their teachers, and take any alternative that 
offers itself rather than quarrel with the hand that 
dispenses the bread of life. 

The elders of a church, being associated with the 
minister in important work and by the most sacred 
ties, become emphatically his friends ; and as they 
are usually men of influence, they diffuse their own 
feelings of attachment throughout a congregation; 
and hence the pastor becomes more and more en- 
deared to his flock, so that a severance of their rela- 
tion is felt to be very painful, and in a country where 
the system of eldership is in healthful operation, 
seldom occurs. It is happily a rare thing in Scotland 
to hear of a minister demitting his charge on account 
of misunderstandings : I am afraid that the same 
remark is not applicable to Congregationalism in 
England. 

Secondly, The sessional system would secure for 
Congregationalist churches a more thorough superin- 
tendence. Deacons so far do the work of elders ; 
but when that work devolves on parties to whom it 
has not been professedly committed, and who have 
besides their proper and distinctive duties, it is then 
but partially and irregularly discharged. 

To compensate for this felt deficienc}^, some churches ■ 
of the Independents appoint Committees of Discipline 
and Committees of Visitation. But these are sorry 
substitutes for scriptural office-bearers. If an indi- 
vidual come into a house to counsel or reprove some 



164 



ON THE DISTINCTION OF 



member of the family in a case of delicacy where 
words need weight to give them persuasiveness, what 
force will there be in the announcement — " I appear 
here as one of a Committee?" Widely different is 
the effect when an individual, clothed with an office 
of Christ's appointment, interposes to plead His cause 
and enforce His commandments. There is something 
dreadfully wrong where the suggestions of such an 
adviser are refused deference and consideration. 

Elders who do their duty are not only respected 
but beloved by the people ; and hence they form a 
bond of connection between worshippers themselves, 
by which many a church has been held together and 
brought safely through difficulties when there was no 
stated pastor, or the condition of the pastorate tended 
to dispersion and ruin. If at the present time all the 
Independent churches of England had companies of 
elders, and each elder visited half-yearly a section of 
the Christian people assigned to his more immediate 
charge, we should hear less of the conquests effected 
by the searching proselytising zeal of Popery and 
Puseyism. 

Thirdly, The adoption of a sessional system by the 
Independent churches of England would have a 
tendency to retain in their communion persons of 
superior endowments. They who are qualified to 
be useful would not then need to join such sects 
as that of the Plymouth Brethren to find room for 
the exercise of their gifts. It is true that deacons 
take a spiritual charge ; but their avowed business is 
the serving of tables, and extraneous and unacknow- 



TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 165 



ledged functions are always executed at disadvan- 
tage. It is true also that committees may help the 
pastor, and make amends to some extent for his 
lack of service ; but this expedient has no aspect of 
scriptural warrant, and rather acknowledges a void 
than fills it effectively. The church should surely 
have offices bearing the stamp of New Testament 
sanction, which will give to competent persons all 
facilities for usefulness, without rendering them liable 
to the charge of irregularity or assumption. The 
institution of a ruling eldership plainly opens such a 
channel for the free development and action of bene- 
ficence. Presbyterial churches are so desirous to 
have well-qualified elders, that whenever an indivi- 
dual evinces qualifications for superintendence, and 
is of consistent character, his difficulty is to avoid the 
office rather than to obtain it ; and I have no doubt 
that this fact presents in part the reason why the 
PJymouthist system is almost unknown in Scotland. 

Fourthly, The adoption of a sessional system tends 
to the conservation of sound doctrine in churches. 
Elders find it necessary, for their character and for 
the comfortable performance of their work, to be 
familiar with Scripture and with the best known 
evangelical treatises. They are not engaged in eru- 
dite speculations which, in exercising reason, are 
easily perverted to foster its pride and turn it away 
from fundamental truths and practical godliness. 
That reading which suits their functions best is that 
which is fullest of Christ — that which with least 
artifice and eloquence feeds the soul, and which, 



166 



ON THE DISTINCTION OF 



above all, supplies a word in season for a death-bed. 
For such a class of men rationalism has few charms, 
and German neology will penetrate with difficulty 
into any church of which the views and spirit bear 
the impress of their oversight. 

Fifthly, The adoption of a sessional system by 
churches devoid of it, would lead gradually and 
guardedly to other improvements. Few will deny 
that amendments are called for, even in religious de- 
nominations the most exemplary and useful, to meet 
the exigencies of the times. The Independent Eng- 
lish churches, in a season of trial, are, by their own 
confession, not manifesting all that unity or power 
which are essential to progress and victory. But 
changes are hazardous, and we are tempted to bear 
with existing evils rather than encounter the per- 
adventures of innovation. In the multitude of coun- 
sellors there is safety; and in no case is this maxim 
more applicable than to a body of men chosen to 
office because of their sound judgment and excellent 
Christian character, and interested alike in the 
honour of their minister and the prosperity of the 
flock. If every Nonconformist society of Christians 
had its assembly of freely chosen elders, materials 
now loose within these societies would come to be 
cemented, and this internal consolidation would fa- 
vour a stability of mutual support between churches; 
and the charges of incoherency and feebleness brought 
against Nonconformity, both by its friends and foes, 
would be speedily refuted by the mighty acts of an 
aggregated and ever-gathering strength. And why 



TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 



167 



should Independent churches have each its con- 
sessus of elders in our days as in former times? 
That every church should have a plurality of presby- 
ters/is on all hands admitted; and that single admis- 
sion, fully acted on, would work a reformation, and 
bring us towards agreement. But we have other 
elements in common. Dr Davidson admits and con- 
tends, that of the primitive elders some ruled only, 
while others ruled and taught. He does not think 
that eventually this was a difference of principle, but 
he argues strenuously that the difference existed. 
Both he and Dr Wardlaw think that the payment of 
elders may occasionally be dispensed with.* They 
both think that there may be a president among the 
elders, or, as we should say, a moderator of session ;f 
and the Bev. Dr HalleyJ and the Bev. John Kelly § 
have expressed the same sentiments. The only re- 
maining point of difference respects the sort of ordi- 
nation elders should have. Is it to be the same for 
all elders, whether they rule only or teach also ? I 
have reasoned that it is most scriptural and reason- 
able to orclain men only to those functions which they 
are actually to discharge. But I shall consider 

THE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN US VERY SMALL IF ONE 
GENERAL FORM OF ORDINATION IS ALLOWED TO IN- 
TRODUCE AN ADEQUATE NUMBER OF LABOURERS, AND 
SUCH A DISTRIBUTION OF THEIR WORK AS WILL SECURE 
TO THE CHURCH THE VARIED BENEFIT OF DIFFERENT 

* Eccles. Polity, p. 369 ; Congreg. Indep., p. 223. 
t Eccles. Polity, p. 38 ; Congreg. Indep., pp. 174, 175. 
J Congreg. Lect., p. 63. ~ g§ 

\ Speech reported in the British Banner, Oct. 22, 1852. 



168 



ON THE DISTINCTION OF 



GIFTS THE GUIDANCE OF THE WISE AND THE PRELEC- 
TIONS OF THE ELOQUENT. 

A ruling eldership is nowhere more needed than 
in the Methodist Connection. The Wesleyanshave 
done a great work. They have directed their efforts 
to the necessitous in every clime ; and whether we 
mark their progress in Great Britain, or on the Con- 
tinent, or among the heathen, it is everywhere 
radiant with the inscription, " Unto the poor the 
gospel is preached." Deeply calamitous would it be 
for the interests of our common Christianity, if a 
denomination of Christians . so energetic and useful 
should be arrested or enfeebled in its course. But 
the divisions now existing in its ranks are formidable, 
especially when viewed in relation to their cause — a 
dislike of exclusive and irresponsible pastoral power. 
"Liberty," says Bunsen, "is inseparable from abuse, 
and therefore from scandal : the political history of 
the politically freest nation in the world is the best 
proof of that. But men and Christians ought not to 
be frightened by such abuse and such scandal into 
a betrayal of the sacred cause of liberty and truth." 
The same writer observes, that, " in all congregational 
and ecclesiastical institutions, Christian freedom, 
within limits conformable to Scripture, constitutes the 
first requisite for a vital restoration." * These words 
should have more weight, as coming from a distin- 
guished foreigner,! whose country is less favoured 

* See Hippolytus and his Age, vol. i., Pref. xix., and vol. iii. 
Introd. xv. 

t "The distinguished representative of the sovereign of a 
great kingdom, a zealous and influential member of the Evan- 



TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 169 

than our own with free institutions. The British mind 
is averse to despotism, and most of all to clerical des- 
potism ; and a religious party regarded as wearing this 
badge, and refusing, when entreated by thousands of 
its members, to popularise more liberally than the Wes- 
leyan Connection has done its administration, must 
henceforth contend with extraordinary difficulties. 
The eminent talent, piety, and services of such men as 
Dr Bunting, may do much, very much, for any cause 
favoured with them; but in these latitudes it is hard for 
any man, however good and great, to pilot and impel a 
vessel against the current of public opinion. I have 
endeavoured to show that the Scriptures do not assign 
to ministers of the word this invidious position ; and 
if the case be so, we are not at liberty to brave popular 
disapproval founded in scriptural conviction. A free 
choice of office-bearers, more especially as exemplified 
in a ruling eldership, is the cure ; and if the denomi- 
nation contain any number of men approaching in 
excellence to some of its members with whom I have 
the happiness to be acquainted, their admission into 
Conference would be an accession of strength to all 
holy influences, and would promise to the Connection 
a brightening future, by which the lustre even of its 
own past history would be surpassed and eclipsed. * 

gelical Church of Germany, who for nearly twenty years was 
the King of Prussia's minister and plenipotentiary at Rome, and 
has subsequently held the same reponsible office for more than 
twelve in London.'" — Edinburgh Review, Jan. 1853, Art. i. 

* The Watchman and Wesley an Advertiser has honoured me 
with at least two able and elaborate articles on this volume. 
The writer expresses himself energetically, but at the same 
time with kindness and courtesy. In the second article (of 



170 



ON THE DISTINCTION OF 



date July 13, 1853), the reviewer "endeavours to show into 
what difficulties" I am "brought when called upon to defend 
the peculiar tenet of Presbyterianism— the ruling eldership — 
whether against Congregationalist, or (more especially) Epis- 
copalian opponents." This ruling eldership he pronounces to 
be a "figment ; " " the weakness and difficulty of the Presby- 
terian Church in theory, involving its expounders and defenders 
in inconsistency at every turn." 

And what is the reviewer's own mind on the subject ? " That 
there were some who laboured in the word and doctrine less 
frequently and systematically, less formally or publicly, than 
others," he "thinks no ingenuous and well-informed student 
of Scripture and early ecclesiastical history will deny." There 
is thus admitted to have been a distinction between elders who 
ruled, and elders who both ruled and taught in the primitive 
churches — a distinction confessedly pointed at and recognised 
in Paul's Epistle to Timothy, of which the language is quoted 
by the reviewer. So far well. The writer to this extent 
agrees with us, and differs with others as to the j ust interpre- 
tation of an important and much-disputed passage of Scripture. 

But he considers this distinction to have been " practical," 
and to have involved no sort of principle; to have been, <: so to 
speak, accidental," and, in every view, a matter of so little con- 
sequence that no place should be assigned to it in a discussion 
on church government. I cannot acquiesce in this conclusion. 
The distinction is allowed to have existed in apostolic times ; 
its existence is confessedly recognised in the language of Paul, 
who does not speak of it as either improper or insignificant, 
but requires the church to act in accordance with its claims ; 
and the fact that every church, no matter how small, was by 
apostolic requirement to have a company of elders— who could 
have found no place for their functions if they had been all 
public teachers— shows, I apprehend, that every church was 
expected and appointed to have elders who rule well, in discri- 
mination from elders who also labour in word and doctrine ; 
and that, to use language which the reviewer repudiates, this 
was designed to be " a permanent, official, and definite distinc- 
tion in the church of Christ." No other explanation harmo- 
nises with the facts. Nor can we revert in our usages to the 
apostolic multiplicity of elders, without reverting to the apos- 



TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 



171 



tolic distribution of them into rulers and teachers. Get a num- 
ber of elders for each church, and, if instruction is to be efficient, 
some will rule simpty, while one or more will teach also ; and 
however much some may scorn this inevitable distinction as 
accidental and diminutive, it has only to be adopted and al- 
lowed free course in order to modify beneficially the entire 
complexion and spirit of ecclesiastical rule. 

But the reviewer argues that I declare ruling elders to be 
" spiritual office-bearers " equally as teaching presbyters. 
Therefore they cease to belong to the people, they become a 
branch of the pastorate, and lay liberty is consequently defunct 
in Presbyterian churches. " What becomes," he asks, " of the 
special representativeship of elders — of popular election and 
representation— of the popular element in Presbyterian church 
assemblies? All these fancies are dissipated ; and when closely 
sifted, nothing is found in Presbyterianism except mere clerical 
exclusiveness." My answer is, that the liberty of Presbyterian 
churches does not lie mainly or essentially in the distinction of 
teaching and ruling elders, but in the popular choice of all 
office-bearers, to whatever grade or order belonging— a view 
which my language in this part of the volume failed in the 
first edition adequately to express, though it had been unequi- 
vocally presented in prior pages, towards the close of chap, iii., 
part 3. For further elucidation of the point, an illustration 
may be derived from the British Constitution. The House of 
Lords is not anti- popular, simply as being composed of Peers ; 
nor the House of Commons democratic, simply as being com- 
posed of Commoners. The main difference lies in having or not 
having a privileged constituency. The rights of the Peerage 
are no doubt hereditary ; but if the people came to elect the 
members of the House of Lords, that assembly would have " a 
popular element/' though it still consisted of Peers. And if the 
House of Commons were a self-elected body, or packed by the 
nominees of aristocrats, it would become essentially anti- 
popular and despotic, though the members composing it still 
bore the appellation of Commoners. Freedom depends on the 
franchise. A church having pastors only would be a free 
church, if the pastors were popularly elected ; and a church 
having elders would be enthralled, if the elders were the no- 
minees of the minister, and he the nominee of a patron. 



172 



ON THE DISTINCTION OF 



At the same time, there is much in the circumstance — of 
which the reviewer makes little account— that ruling elders 
are chosen from as well as by the people. Here, again, temporal 
polity may illustrate the spiritual. Our cities have a surer 
freedom and a better guarantee for the right understanding of 
their interests, and true sympathy with them on the part of the 
powers that be, that their magistrates are fellow citizens and 
not strangers, still belonging to the people in all that concerns 
civic occupation and prosperity. And how this fact should be 
of vital moment in a city, and of no moment at all in a church, 
I leave with the reviewer to discover and to demonstrate. 

But the doctrine of a ruling eldership nullifies, it seems, my op- 
position to Episcopacy. " Who," asks the reviewer, " who could 
believe that this opponent of three orders of clergy is himself 
a maintainer of three orders of spiritual office-bearers in the 
church? My reply is, that I have no special objection to the 
number three, but that I cannot find one of the three orders of 
Episcopalians in the New Testament Scriptures. I answer far- 
ther, that, by the showing of Episcopalians themselves, there 
may be an important distinction among office-bearers, who may 
belong to the same order notwithstanding. A bishop is a dis- 
tinguishable personage from an archbishop ; their powers in all 
things are not coextensive or identical; and yet, in Episcopal 
theory, they are of the same order. If, then, elders unitedly 
superintend the flock ; if the minister is one of them, and has 
only one vote in the session of which he is chairman ; if the 
word presbyter, as Neander and others affirm, had primarily 
and principally reference to such rule ; then why may such men 
not be as rulers one order, though a distinction obtain in the 
extent and mode of their teaching? Let an Episcopalian prove 
to me that bishops and archbishops are found and discriminated 
in Scripture, while they are yet both spoken of as diocesans 
and I shall not consider the internal distinction he contends 
for as seriously imperilling the loftiest grade in his hierarchy. 
Here Prelatists and Presbyterians occupy analogous footings. 
The former have a distinction among their bishops, the latter 
among their elders — the only difference being, that Prelatists 
here plead expediency, while Presbyterians appeal to Scripture ; 
and I therefore see no call for the Watchman's observation, " We 
never feel so much disposed to think there is reason for the 



TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 



173 



moderate Episcopalian theory, as when we are reading a Pres- 
byterian's argument in favour of the ruling eldership." 

But the reviewer has another argument against ruling 
elders, regarded as spiritual functionaries, and, being his last, 
it is probably not considered to be the least objection, since no 
controversialist is disposed to conclude weakly. Elders have 
" their business." They " buy and sell, and get gain. 1 ' " But it 
is only," says the reviewer, " those who have relinquished every 
other aim and pursuit, that they may devote themselves to the 
work of the ministry and to the salvation of souls, who have 
any title to be esteemed presbyters, elders, or bishops of 
Christ's church. 1 ' Quite as conclusively might it be reasoned 
that it is only those who have relinquished every other aim and 
pursuit, that they may give themselves to the work of the magis- 
tracy, who have any title to be considered mayors, or subordi- 
nate rulers of our cities*. But why go so far for a case in con- 
futation? Paul was a tentmaker, and he made tents while 
planting the churches. Did this " pursuit " annul his apostle- 
ship? Perhaps, however, his case was extraordinary, and not 
designed for imitation. What, then, did he say to the elders 
of Ephesus? "Ye yourselves know that these hands have 
ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me. 
I have showed you all things, how that so labouring, ye ought 
to support the weak. " 

With all respect, I invite the reviewer to reconsider the doc- 
trine of a ruling eldership, though he applies to it such epi- 
thets as "farce,*" "monstrous," "incredible/' if he have no 
stronger grounds than those we have been examining on which 
to base his opposition to this article. Such argumentation as 
he has offered, though ingenious — perhaps puzzling— is not 
likely to convince the Christian world— shall I say the Wes- 
leyan Connection itself? — that elective Presbytery has in it no 
popular element, or that a Conference, invested with supreme 
and absolute power, and embracing not one member chosen by 
Christian communicants, can exemplify a constitution in which, 
after a fair and open manner, "the laity are taken into most 
influential and extensive conjunction with the ministry in ec- 
clesiastical government; and yet the scriptural authority of 
the presbyter bishops of the church, is preserved intact." 



PART V. 



ON THE SUBORDINATION OF PRESBYTERS 
TO PRELATES ; OR, DIOCESAN 
EPISCOPACY. 

CHAPTER I. 

High ground taken by a portion of Episcopal writers — Impor- 
tance attached by them to Apostolical Succession— Conse- 
quences of the doctrine — The Episcopal form of government 
might be the best, independently of the doctrine of Suc- 
cession. 

Many Episcopal writers take high ground in defend- 
ing their church order. In their view, ministers not 
episcopally ordained are mere laymen. And with- 
out a regular ministry, there can be no valid ad- 
ministration of ordinances — no true church — no 
covenanted mercy. Some of them, in very plain 
terms, represent an Episcopal administration of the 
means of grace as not only essential to good order, 
but as in all ordinary circumstances indispensable to 
salvation. The famous Dodwell, in a work full of 
anathemas against schism, supposes himself to evince 
no schismatic spirit in declaring of every dissenter 
from Episcopal communion, that, from " being dis- 



ON THE SUBORDINATION, ETC. 



175 



united from the church, he loses his union with 
Christ, and all the mystical benefits consequent to 
that union. He has thenceforward no title to the 
sufferings or merits or intercessions of Christ, or any 
of those other blessings which were purchased by 
those merits, or which may be expected from those 
intercessions. He has no title to pardon of sin, to 
the gifts or assistances of the blessed Spirit, or to 
any promises of future rewards, though he should 
perform all other parts of his duty besides this of 
reuniting himself again to Christ's mystical body in 
a visible communion. Till then there are no pro- 
mises of acceptance of any prayers, which either 
he may offer for himself, or others may offer for 
him. And how disconsolate must the condition be 
of such a person !"* When this writer and others 
undertake to prove that all persons who are not 
"of the episcopal communion are guilty of the sin 
of schism," J what do they mean by communion ? Is 
it mere attendance at church ? or is it rather, as 
they seem to think, the state into which parties are 
brought by baptism, episcopally administered ? The 
New Testament allies communion more expressly 
with another sacrament : " The cup of blessing 
which we. bless, is it not the communion of the 
blood of Christ ? the bread which we break, is it 
not the communion of the body of Christ?" J Of 
the millions who professedly belong to the Episco- 
pal Church, comparatively few care to have com- 

* Separation of Churches, &c., Preface, p. xii. London, 1679. 
t Ibid., p. xxv. X 1 Cor. x. 16. 



176 



ON THE SUBORDINATION OF 



munion in this scriptural sense of the expression. 
Should not such a fact awaken other sentiments 
than those of exclusiveness and intolerance ? Should 
it not create a doubt whether the immense power of 
the church be a true index of devotional frame and 
spiritual prosperity ? 

More recently, the celebrated Dr Newman, while 
Vicar of St Mary the Virgin's, Oxford, maintained, 
in a sermon which, under Church of England 
patronage, has been printed in different forms, and 
which has passed through successive editions, that 
no Dissenters are regenerated, and that " regenera- 
tion is the peculiar and invisible gift of the church."* 
He there expresses, however, the strange opinion, 
which he may since have retracted, that though we 
cannot have the new birth in our state of schism, 
yet "men have, through God's blessing, obeyed, 
and pleased him without it," — a species of comfort 
this, which it will be well for us neither to value 
nor to accept. Bishop Hobart, in his " Companion 
for the Altar" — Meditation for Saturday Evening — 
has avowed, that " where the gospel is proclaimed, 
communion with the church, by the participation 
of its ordinances at the hands of the duly-authorised 
priesthood, is the indispensable condition of salva- 
tion."! 

" The Eight Eeverend Bishop Doane," in " a 
Charge to the Clergy of the Diocese of New Jersey, 

* Parochial Sermons, vol. iii. Second Edition. London : 
Rivingtons. — As a Tract. London : J. Burns. 1841. 

+ See Dr Mason's " Claims of Episcopacy Refuted," chap. L 
p. 2. 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



177 



in America/' delivered in May, 1842, and repub- 
lished the same year in London, for the benefit of 
the English Church, placidly confounds " the church 
of the apostles" with the church of their alleged 
successors, and says, " It is through them whom 
He (Christ) instructed, and appointed, and com- 
missioned to make all believers one with Him, in 
baptism, that the communion of the mystical body 
on earth is formed and held with the divine and 

glorious Head in heaven It thus becomes 

a very serious question, whether they who are not 
' built on the foundation of the apostles ' are 6 of 
the household of God ; ' whether they who have not 
been ' added ' in the church i to them ' are 6 added 
to the Lord.' Certainly there is no warrant for 
such a hope in all the holy Scriptures. Certainly 
it finds no encouragement in all the writings which 
come down to us from the first days. It certainly 
would be out of harmony with all the dealings and 
with the whole providence of Him who doeth all 

things well Let none of us therefore count 

it an indifferent thing whether we are in the church 
or not," &c. 

The circumstance of belonging to an established 
church affords no refuge from these denunciations. 
All are dissenters who belong to state churches 
which are not episcopal. The established clergy 
of Scotland are characterised by Dr Hicks, in the 
preface to his "Answer to the Eights of the 
Christian Church," as "a band of rebels;" "the 
abomination of desolation in the house or king- 



178 



OX THE SUBORDINATION OF 



dom of God;" "not pastors, but wolves of the 
flock/' * 

'Nor is it enough, according to these parties, 
to adopt episcopal forms. " Episcopacy," says Mr 
Lawson, " without the succession, is nothing, and 
differs in no respect from Presbyterianism ; for it is 
the apostolically-derived succession which constitutes 
the Episcopate.'' f The same writer declares, "that 
the prelacy which was introduced into the Scotch 
Church in 1572 by the Convention of Leith " was 
more objectionable than Presbyterianism, because 
it was the mere shadow without the substance/' J 
Even a bishop would run without being sent, and 
would have no more authority than a lay preacher, 
if he did not derive his commission through a suc- 
cession of bishops from the apostles. The Lutheran 
Church in Germany may be said to be episcopal in 
its structure. It has superintendents who so far 
fill the place of bishops. But that avails nothing. 
Luther was only a presbyter ; and he, with others 
of like status, ordained their successors ; and ordina- 
tion by presbyters is nominal and worthless. The 
ordaining virtue is incommunicable, save by the 
hands of bishops who trace their appointment to 
apostles as predecessors. 

And what if Luther could not have obtained office 
from such ordainers ? Was the work of reformation 

* See Introduction to Dr Mason on Episcopacy, by the Rev. 
J. Blackburn. London, 1838. 

t Hist, of the Episcopal Church of Scotland, from Refor- 
mation to Revolution, chap. iv. p. 112. 

$ Ibid., p. 110. 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



173 



to break down for want of this qualification in the 
reformer ? To this query Bishop Onderdonk, who 
is more liberal than most advocates of Episcopacy, 
replies, " "We think it doubtful whether Luther and 
his associates, and Calvin and his associates, were 
prevented from obtaining episcopacy by difficulties 
strictly insuperable. It is well known to those ac- 
quainted with ecclesiastical history, that Novatian, a 
schismatic bishop, induced three obscure bishops to 
consecrate him : and among the multitude of Papal 
bishops, could not those reformers have found three, 
elevated or obscure, to give them the succession, or 
else to join with them, and preside over their purified 
church ? and this, without resorting to the culpable 
methods ascribed to Xovatian V * We are not pre- 
pared to acknowledge that the multitude of Papal 
bishops are all lineal successors of the apostles. 
"Where is the promise in the New Testament that 
the Papal Church, or any church, would have this 
uninterrupted succession ? Who is to harmonise the 
conflicting lists of successors furnished by the earlier 
Christian fathers ? Where is the evidence that in 
later times of darkness and confusion no irregular 
appointments have broken the continuity of the chain ? 
Dr Alexander has well asked, " What should we think 
of a man who should claim a dormant peerage on 
such pretences as those on which the Anglican clergy 
claim spiritual descent from the apostles, whose gene- 
alogy, when it came to be examined, was found to 
contain the names of persons who apparently never 

* Episcopacy Tested by Scripture, p. 49. London, 1840. 



180 



ON THE SUBORDINATION OF 



existed ; of persons of whom it was not known which 
was the father and which was the son — one document 
averring that Eichard was the son of John, and 
another that John was the son of Eichard ; while a 
third omitted the existence of Eichard altogether? 
and yet it is just upon such evidence as this that the 
successionists rest their claim to an official descent 
from the apostles, and demand, for that shadowy- 
Eidolon which they have set up, the religious homage 
of all people, nations, and languages."* If such a 
succession has not been promised, and if it do not 
admit of actual proof, are we to base the validity of 
the ministry, and of all Christian ordinances on a mere 
per ad vent ure ? A bold assertion is it, that if a single 
link in the succession be wanting or amiss, then the 
institution of the pastorate, with all its attendant 
privileges, has ceased, so that we have not, and can- 
not again have, any Christian ministry whatever ! f 
Eegarding the abettors of this doctrine, Archbishop 
Whately, in his work on the Kingdom of Christ, 
says, " They make our membership of the church of 
Christ, and our hopes of the gospel salvation, depend 
on an exact adherence to everything that is proved, 
or believed, or even suspected, to be an apostolical 
usage ; and on our possessing what they call apos- 
tolical succession ; that is, on our having a ministry 
whose descent can be traced up, in an unbroken and 

* Anglo- Catholicism, chap. iv. sec. i. p. 237. 

t Dr Brown of Langton adduces and substantiates numerous 
examples of " succession destroyed " in his work on the Exclu- 
sive Claims of Puseyite Episcopalians, Letter xv., &c. See also 
Dr Alexander's Anglo- Catholicism, chap. iv. 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



181 



undoubted chain, to the apostles themselves, through 
men regularly ordained by them or their successors, 
according to the exact forms originally appointed. 
And all Christians (so called) who do not come under 
this description, are to be regarded either as outcasts 
from 6 the household of faith/ or at best as in a con- 
dition 6 analogous to that of the Samaritans of old,' 
who worshipped on Mount Gerizim (John iv.), or as 
in ' an intermediate state between Christianity and 
heathenism/ and as ' left to the uncovenanted mercies 
of God/ Those who on such grounds defend the 
institutions and ordinances, and vindicate the apos- 
tolical character of our own (or indeed of any) church, 
— whether on their own sincere conviction, or as be- 
lieving that such arguments are the best calculated 
to inspire the mass of mankind with becoming rever- 
ence, and to repress the evil of schism, — do seem to 
me, in proportion as they proceed on those principles, 
to be, in the same degree, removing our institutions 
from a foundation on a rock, to place them on sand. 
Instead of a clearly-intelligible, well-established, and 
accessible proof of divine sanction for the claims of 
our church, they would substitute one that is not 
only obscure, disputable, and out of the reach of the 
mass of mankind, but even self-contradictory, sub- 
versive of our own and every church's claims, and 
leading to the very evils of doubt and schismatical 
division, which it is desired to guard against." * 

And in what a position does this theory of succes- 
sion place Luther ? He should, it seems, have gone 

* Essay ii., § 17, 18. 



182 



ON THE SUBORDINATION OF 



the round of the multitude of papal bishops to find 
three, elevated or obscure, willing to ordain him, or 
to go along with him, and make amends for his in- 
capacity, by doing episcopal work for him. In the 
act of protesting against Eome, Luther should have 
enacted the suppliant to its bishops, beseeching them 
to make him a bishop, and confessing his dependence 
on Rome for those same functions with which he 
should attack its Antichristian domination! 

Bishop Onderdonk thinks, however, that apostolic 
succession is, in our days at least, of easy attainment. 
" Allowing for former periods," he says, " all that is 
ever claimed on that score (of impossibility), there 
has been no difficulty at all in procuring a Protestant 
episcopate, or else in finding one to conform to, and 
unite with, since the Scotch bishops consecrated 
Bishop Seeburg, the first on our American list." * 

There may have been no difficulty felt, and yet 
the absence of felt difficulty is no demonstration of 
being in the right. Dr Campbell, and other learned 
men, have maintained that the ordination of our pre- 
sent Scotch Episcopal clergy is solely from presbyters. *f 
If it be doubtful whether our Scotch bishops have, 
it must be equally doubtful whether they can give, 
apostolical succession. Irrespectively of this ques- 
tion, the Scotch Episcopal Church rebukes the pre- 
tensions with which its name is here identified. As 
a church established by law, it owned the Confession 
of Eaith, which was drawn up in 1560, and legally 

* Episcopac3 T Tested by Scripture, p. 51. 
t On Eccles. His., vol. i. p. 355. 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



183 



ratified in 1567 ; and which, though replaced for a 
time by the Westminster Confession, came again into 
force after the Restoration, and was the authoritative 
standard of doctrine till prelacy was abolished at the 
Revolution.* I perceive that Mr J. P. Lawson, in 
his History of the Scottish Episcopal Church, while 
he speaks disparagingly of the Westminster Confes- 
sion, which he calls a "lengthy compilation," ex- 
plicitly acknowledges that "the old Confession, 
drawn up by the early Scottish reformers, and rati- 
fied in 1567, had been all along the received and 
common standard of both parties," Episcopal and 
Presbyterian, f He says still more explicitly, " This 
Confession is chiefly remarkable as having been the 
common creed of the Established Episcopal Church 
in subsequent times, and of the Presbyterians, until 
they adopted the Westminster Confession." — (P. 44.) 
And what is the doctrine of this Confession as to 
successional virtue ? Its eighteenth article treats " of 
the Notes by which the True Kirk is discerned from 

* I am aware that some of our Scotch Episcopalians do not 
like to be charged with the Confession of 1560, drawn up in four 
days by John Knox, John Row, John Winram, John Douglas, 
and John Spottiswood ; and that Bishop Skinner, in his 
*' Primitive Truth and Order, 1 ' has endeavoured to parry this 
blow. (See chap. ii. p. 172.) Dr Campbell expresses himself 
somewhat strongly, when he characterises that Confession as 
containing " the Doctrine of the Episcopal Reformed Church 
of Scotland " (On Eccles. Hist., Lect. iv.) ; and Dr Brown of 
Langton, when he calls it " their Confession " (On Puseyite 
Episcopacy, Letter xiv). But the argument, to the extent of 
Mr Lawson's admission, quoted above, is, I think, legitimate 
and incontrovertible. 

f Chap. iii. p. 52. I 



184 



ON THE SUBORDINATION OF 



the False." It there says, " Becaus that Satan from 
the beginning hath laboured to deck his pestilent 
synagogue with the title of the Kirk of God, and 
hath inflamed the hearts of cruell murtherers to 
persecute, trouble, and molest the true Kirk and 
members thereof ; as Cain did Abel, Ismael Isaack, 
Esau Jacob, and the whole priesthood of the Jewes, 
Christ Jesus himself, and his apostles after him, it is 
a thing most requisite, that the true Kirk be dis- 
cerned frome the filthie synagogues, by cleere and 
perfyt notes, least we, being deceaved, receave and 
embrace, to our owne condemnation, the one for the 
other. The notes, signes, and sure tokens whereby 
the immaculat spous of Christ Jesus is knowne frome 
the horrible harlot, the kirk malignant, we affirm e, 
are neither antiquitie, title usurped, lineal descent, 
place appointed, nor multitude of men approving an 
error." * Here lineal descent is expressly disclaimed 
as a note of the true kirk. This Confession also 
maintains, article 22, concerning the Papistical kirk, 
that "their ministers are no ministers of Jesus Christ." f 
Here the doctrine of lineal descent is again discarded, 
and Papal ministers are declared not to be Christian 
ministers — so that were succession ever so necessary, 
it would have in them no medium of transmission. 

Yet succession is the one thing needful to ecclesias- 
tical order, and even to acceptance with God and 
admission to glory, in the estimation of numbers who 
are confident of possessing the treasure themselves, 

* See Calderwcod's Hist., vol. ii. p. 28. Edinburgh, 1843. 
tlbid., p. 33. 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



185 



and who ally the want of it in others with helpless, 
hopeless destitution. 

These notions are regarded by most Protestants as 
very arrogant in their own nature, and at the same 
time as most injurious to other religious denomina- 
tions, in unchurching many of the holiest Christian 
societies, and denying the ministerial character — 
nay, the Christian character — to a large proportion 
of the most eminent reformers, ministers, and mis- 
sionaries. The footing on which men are to be saved 
is often and clearly presented in Scripture : " He that 
believeth on the Son hath everlasting life : and he 
that believeth not the Son shall not see life ; but the 
wrath of God abideth on him." * " These are writ- 
ten, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, 
the Son of God ; and that believing ye might have 
life through his name/' f " Believe on the Lord 
Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." J No men- 
tion is made in such passages of any sacramental 
virtue depending for its efficacy on a transmission 
without breach by prelatic hands, from apostolical 
times. Salvation by the faith of Christ was the 
apostolic doctrine. Is there no audacity and no 
danger in shifting the ground of the sinner's hope ? 
Do they who so freely denounce all who are not of 
their sect, and who have not subscribed to their un- 
revealed and unattested Shibboleth, not fear the de- 
nunciation — " I marvel that ye are so soon removed 
from him that called you into the grace of Christ 
unto another gospel : which is not another ; but there 

* John iii. 36. f John xx. 31. % Acts xvi. 31. 



186 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF 



be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gos- 
pel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from 
heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that 
which we have preached unto you, let him be ac- 
cursed. As we have said before, so say I again, If 
any man preach any other gospel unto you than that 
ye have received, let him be accursed"? * 

We must not, however, confound all Episcopacy 
with the exclusive pretensions of a class of Episcopa- 
lians, however numerous and influential that class 
may be. The doctrine of succession might be ex- 
ploded and abandoned, and yet the Episcopal model 
of church government might be the most scriptural 
and expedient. 

Presbyterians and Independents sometimes evince 
a disposition to make short work with Episcopacy ; 
and there is, I allow, a certain advantage in limiting 
attention to the more determining points of a con- 
troversy. But when we look at the power of the 
Anglican Church, and the vast influence for good or 
evil it is likely to exert on the spiritual condition of 
the world, surely we do w r ell to scrutinise carefully 
and deliberately all its credentials. I propose to 
discuss the Episcopal argument as fully as the pro- 
portions of a compendious general treatise will allow, 
leaving to the reader the alternative, should he find 
• the disquisition tiresome, of passing to the next Part. 
Looking away from abuses, even though they should 
be indigenous to the soil, I will examine the simplest 
principles of Episcopacy ; and all I ask of brethren in 

* Gal. i. 6-9. 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



187 



the English Church is to bear with a tone of decision 
in the following pages, exempt, I trust, from dog- 
matism and uneharitableness. 

To give more concentration to the argument, I will 
direct my reply principally to Bishop Onderdonk's 
" Episcopacy Tested by Scripture." That production 
is able and temperate. It has excited much interest 
in America, and has elicited various replies. In this 
country it has been republished with much additional 
matter, taken from the author's answers to his oppo- 
nents. The Rev. Albert Barnes, so favourably known 
among us as a commentator, says of it — " It is the 
best written, the most manly, elaborate, judicious, and 
candid discussion, in the form of a tract, which we 
have seen on this subject." I have not met with Mr 
Barnes' contributions to this controversy ; and all I 
know of any of the rejoinders to the Bishop is derived 
from his own treatise, with the appended notes and 
essays, as published in London, 1840. These explana- 
tions I make, lest I should seem to do injustice to able 
allies. Their treatment of the subject would likely 
have supplied me with all that needed to be said or 
that can be urged with propriety ; but their articles 
and pamphlets were not at hand; and though it should 
be with inferior success, I was willing to give the most 
esteemed production of our day on the side of Episco- 
pacy a personal and independent examination. 



188 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF 



CHAPTER II. 

I 

The leading constituents of the Prelatical system— It finds a 
semblance of support in the language of the New Testa- 
ment, which makes mention of Bishops, Presbyters, and 
Deacons— But the Bishops and Presbyters of Scripture are 
the same class of functionaries under diiferent designa- 
tions, and are not two orders— Many Episcopalians, per- 
ceiving and acknowledging the identity of scriptural 
Bishops and Presbyters, have relinquished all defence of 
the divine right of Episcopacy, 

It is the doctrine of Episcopacy ihat there are three 
orders in the Christian ministry. The lowest order is 
that of Deacons, whose functions have been already 
discussed in the earlier portion of this treatise. In 
Episcopal churches they preach and baptise, but are 
no longer almoners. The middle grade is that of 
Presbyters or Elders, the nature of whose office I 
have been latterly considering. The Episcopal Pres- 
byters, besides preaching, administer both sacraments. 
The highest order consists of Bishops. The peculiar 
duties of the bishop are government or discipline, 
ordination, and confirmation. The rite of confirma- 
tion dees not bulk largely in controversy. Hooker 
says, in his Eccles. Polity (b. vii.), " I make not con- 
firmation any part of that power which hath always 
belonged only to bishops, because in some places the 
custom was that presbyters might also confirm in the 
absence of a bishop." Yet, in practice, this right is 
sufficiently conspicuous, and greatly contributes to 
the special consequence of the bishop. It is admitted 
that presbyters have some charge of discipline, but 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



189 



to a limited extent, and only under the bishop's su- 
perintendence. As regards ordination, it is denied 
that presbyters can ordain even a presbyter, though 
by the imposition of their hands they may indicate 
concurrence in ordination by the bishop. " Episco- 
pacy," says Bishop Onderdonk, " declares that the 
Christian ministry was established in three orders, 
called, ever since the apostolic age, bishops, presbyters 
or elders, and deacons, of which the highest only has 
the right to ordain and confirm, that of general su- 
pervision in a diocese, and that of the chief adminis- 
tration of spiritual discipline, besides enjoying all the 
powers of the other grades." * 

This scheme derives at first sight a semblance of 
support from the titles of office found in the New 
Testament. We there read of bishops, presbyters, 
deacons. These are the three names ; have we not, 
then, the three orders? A very slight examination 
shows that two of the names belong to one order, 
and that bishop and presbyter are titles used inter- 
changeably in the New Testament. 

Paul, in journeying to Jerusalem, sent for the 
" elders 9 of Ephesus to meet him at Miletus, and he 
exhorted these elders to feed the church of God, over 
which the Holy Ghost had made them " bishops" — 
rendered in our version overseers. The same indi- 
viduals designated elders in the 17th verse of Acts 
xx., are designated bishops in the 28th verse ; and 
how could it be made more manifest that the two 
designations respected one class of office-bearers ? 
* Episcopacy Tested by Scripture, p. 12. 



190 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF 

We find Paul saying to Titus, " For this cause left I 
thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the 
things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every 
city, as I had appointed thee. If any be blameless, 
the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not 
accused of riot, or unruly. For a bishop must be 
blameless, as the steward of God/'* Here we have 
in one verse a requirement to ordain elders ; in the 
next verse their requisite qualifications ; and in the 
verse succeeding, a reason why such qualifications 
were to be demanded of them : " For a bishop must be 
blameless." It will be observed that the term elder, 
used at the commencement, is exchanged for the term 
bishop in the conclusion, while the same ofiice-bearer 
is spoken of. An elder must have such and such 
qualifications. Why ? Because " a bishop must be 
blameless, as the steward of God." Does not this 
identify the elder and the bishop ? If not, identifica- 
tion is impossible. Were it said the Lord Mayor of 
London must devote himself to his duties, for the 
chief magistrate of such a city has great responsi- 
bilities, would not the language bear, that the Lord 
Mayor and the chief magistrate were the same office- 
bearer ? Otherwise, the representation would be 
absurd ; for why should the mayor devote himself to 
his duties because some other person had great respon- 
sibilities ? Yet the mayor and the chief magistrate 
are not more identified in this comparison, than are 
the elder and the bishop in Paul's instructions to Titus. 
We never find bishop and presbyter discriminated in 

* Titus i. 5-7. 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



191 



the Scriptures. Mention is made of apostles and 
elders, of bishops and deacons, — never of bishops and 
elders. These considerations, as Bishop Burnet ob- 
serves, were urged in the fourth century by Jerome, 
who, " in his epistle to Evagrius, and on the epistle to 
Titus, maintains that all things were at first governed 
in the church by the common advice of presbyters, 
and that bishops were above presbyters, not by divine 
appointment, but by ecclesiastical usage ;" and who 
quotes the very passage already cited, to show that 
"bishop and presbyter were one and the same." * On 
such grounds, Episcopalians are constrained to acknow- 
ledge that the bishops and elders of the New Testa- 
ment were the same order. Much is said about the 
ambiguity of terms, and the sophistry of words ; but 
there is no eventual escape from the admission that, in 
the apostolic age, elders were bishops and bishops were 
elders. " There can be no doubt," says Bishop Skinner, 
" that those who are called elders or presbyters of the 
church are also denominated overseers or bishops." * 
" It is proper," says Bishop Onderdonk, " to advert to 
the fact that the name 6 bishop/ which now desig- 
nates the highest grade of the ministry, is not appro- 
priated to that office in Scripture. That name is there 
given to the middle order, or presbyters, and all that 
we read in the New Testament concerning bishops, in- 
cluding, of course, the words ' overseer' and 'oversight/ 

* See Bishop Burnet's observations on the first and second 
of the Canons, commonly ascribed to the holy Apostles, p. 7. 
Glasgow, 1673. 

t Primitive Truth and Order, chap. 2, p. 180. 



192 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF 



which have the same derivation, is to be regarded as 
pertaining to that middle grade."* 

The scriptural identity of bishops and presbyters, 
thus unequivocally acknowledged, has been regarded 
by many Episcopalians as fatal to the divine right of 
Episcopacy, and as requiring them to base the defence 
of their system on the power of the state or the 
church, and the principles of expediency. They 
contend that the Scriptures guide us in regard to 
doctrine and morality, but not in regard to govern- 
ment ; that though the apostles organised the church 
on a plan suitable to their own era, they have not 
told us how much of their arrangements we are to 
adopt, or, with any distinctness, even what their 
arrangements were ; just because they would not 
abridge our Christian liberty, or deter us, if we keep 
the faith, from fashioning its ecclesiastical framework 
in accommodation to circumstances. Thus Dr Whit- 
gift, then Master of Trinity College, and latterly 
Archbishop of Canterbury, in his "Vindication of 
the Hierarchy," which was revised by Archbishop 
Parker, and the Bishops of London and Ely, and 
dedicated to the Church of England, denies that the 
Scriptures, though a perfect rule of faith, were de- 
signed to be a handmaid of discipline or government. 
Hooker, in his Ecclesiastical Polity, maintains " that 
matters of faith are of a different nature from the 
kind of church government : that the one is necessary 
to be expressly contained in the Word of God, or else 
manifestly collected out of the same ; the other not 

* Episcopacy tested by Scripture, p. 12. 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



193 



so : that it is necessary not to receive the one unless 
there be something in Scripture for them ; the other 
free, if nothing against them may thence be alleged." 
He sees "no just or reasonable cause to reject or 
dislike this." * 

On the question, " Whether the apostles themselves 
left bishops invested with power above other pastors V 9 
or, "Whether, after the apostles were deceased, 
churches did agree among themselves, for preserva- 
tion of peace and order, to make one presbyter in 
each city chief over the rest?" he speaks undecidedly. 
But he argues that God appoints what reason sanc- 
tions, and that though the superiority of bishops 
should be accounted a thing which " the brain of 
man hath devised," yet " the ordination of officers, 
and the very institution of their offices, may be truly 
derived from God, and approved of him, although 
they be not always of him in such sort as those 
things are which are in Scripture." f The English 
Houses of Parliament, for a long period after the 
Reformation, " were almost, to a man," says Neal, 
" of the principles of Erastus, who maintained that 
Christ and his apostles had prescribed no particular 
form of discipline for his church in after ages, but 
had left the keys in the hands of the civil magistrate, 
who had the sole power of punishing transgressors, 
and of appointing such particular forms of church 
government, from time to time, as were most sub- 
servient to the peace and welfare of the common- 

* Book iii., sect. 2, p. 131. Works. London, 1676. 
t Ecclesiastical Polity, book vii. sect. xi. (6), pp. 395, 396. 
London, 1676. 

N 



194 



ON THE SUBORDINATION OF 



wealth. Indeed, these were the principles of our 
church reformers, from Archbishop Cranmer down to 
Bancroft." * " At the era of the Keformation," says 
Dr Thomas M'Crie, " Episcopacy was not considered 
by any of the reformers as a part of divine institution, 
but as a mere human appendage." f 

It is reasonable to doubt whether a valid scriptural 
argument for prelacy, if it had existed, would have 
been missed so generally, and in times of earnest 
inquiry, by the Episcopal world. Not a few Episco- 
palians in our own day occupy substantially the same 
ground. Archbishop Whately holds that " the writers 
of the New Testament do not record the number of 
distinct orders of ministers, or the functions appro- 
priated to each, or the degree, and kind, and mode 
of control exercised in the churches." He argues 
that " the institutions of the English Church, though 
not at variance with any apostolic injunctions, or with 
any gospel principle, are in several points not pre- 
cisely coincident with those of the earliest churches." 
One of the " points" which he specifies as discrimi- 
nating the actual from the ancient church, is the 
modern bishop ruling more than one society. " A 
church and a diocese," he says, " seem to have been 
for a considerable time coextensive and identical!' 
Yet he does not condemn the institutions of Prelates 
and Sees. He thinks they have been introduced by 
the church in the allowable or commendable exercise 
of discretionary power. 

* History of the Puritans, by Daniel Neal, vol. i. pref. p. xix. 
t Miscellaneous Writings, pp. 174, 175. 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



195 



In relation to such views, Bungener says, " It is a 
point which we can concede (to the Eomanists) that 
the sacerdotal hierarchy, like the succession of orders, 
is not in itself a bad thing, and to be condemned." 
But " however ancient may be the tradition in virtue 
of which bishops are chiefs of the church, whatever 
reasons of discipline, unity, and order may be urged 
in its favour, it remains evident that the superiority 
of the bishops over the presbyters or priests is a 
matter of ecclesiastical arrangement, and is human 
and mutable." * On grounds already stated (Part I.), 
I am not careful to discuss those " reasons of discip- 
line, purity, and order," for the appointment of 
prelates, to w T hich Bungener here alludes. One cir- 
cumstance is important to be remarked, that, by 
universal admission, the New Testament is clear and 
explicit about the order of presbyter bishops. Nobody 
doubts that they were a stated class of functionaries 
in the primitive churches. It is only the diocesan 
bishop whose case is in question. He only, as the 
matter is stated by countless Episcopalian authori- 
ties themselves, is missing in evangelical narrative 
and nomenclature ; and when he is sought for in 
the New Testament, is found — nowhere. But if 
presbyters, about whose scriptural status there is 
no obscurity or doubt, can adequately superintend 
the church, why introduce other superintendents 
of whom Scripture says nothing? Above all, why 

* Hist, of the Council of Trent, from French of L. F. 
Bungener, pp. 377-379. Edinburgh: T. Constable & Co., 
1852. 



] 96 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF 

subordinate the scriptural institution to the human 
and the conventional ? We prefer to keep the ordi- 
nances as the apostles delivered them unto us. 



CHAPTER III. 

Some Episcopalians hold that their system is sanctioned by- 
Scripture, and maintain that the Apostles filled the same 
office as Prelates, and constituted the highest of three 
grades of Clergy. 

We have seen that many who approve of Episcopacy 
do not claim for it express scriptural precept or 
pattern. They think that Jesus instituted a church, 
and endowed it with certain rights and privileges 
essential to its well-being, in virtue of which it may 
legitimately modify ecclesiastical orders, and bring 
them into accordance with times and seasons. Or 
if the church would be convulsed by adventuring on 
such changes, its ally, the state, may undertake for 
it the critical task, and secure unanimity and submis- 
sion by the formidable argument of penal sanctions. 
But others take a different view of the subject. They 
claim scriptural warrant for their polity, and maintain 
that bishops are found in the New Testament, though 
under a different name. There we meet with them, 
say they, under the title of apostles. " The highest 
grade/' observes Bishop Onderdonk, " is there found 
in those called apostles." * This grade included not 
only " the twelve," but such functionaries as Timothy 

* Episcopacy Tested by Scripture, p. 12. 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



197 



and Titus, and the seven angels of the Asiatic churches. 
All these teachers, we are assured, were of the same 
order ; they were all apostles, or, as we should say- 
in these days, bishops ; and they held the same office 
as our modern diocesans. Thjs is the ground taken 
by Episcopalians who plead Scripture for their hier- 
archy ; and according as it proves stable or unstable, 
the divine warrant for a ministry in three orders 
stands or falls. I will endeavour to show — 

(1.) That the scriptural argument for Episcopacy, 
so presented, wars with the diction of Scripture ; 

(2.) Confounds orders which Scripture distin- 
guishes ; and, 

(3.) Invalidates that authority of presbyters which 
Scripture is careful to establish. 

If any one of these positions be made good, the Epis- 
copal plea will be confuted ; if they all be made good, 
the confutation will be more complete and convincing. 



CHAPTER IV. 

The scriptural argument for Episcopacy wars with scriptural 
diction— The examples brought to countenance such 
changes as it supposes in the meaning of terms are not 
in point — History appealed to without success — The 
writings of John do not show that language was then 
in a transition state, and verging towards Episcopal 
terminology. 

The first difficulty which meets us in contem- 
plating this theory, is the freedom which it uses 



198 



ON THE SUBORDINATION OF 



with language. Names are representative of things, 
and any exposition of Scripture which makes havoc 
of its nomenclature, may be reasonably suspected of 
doing violence to facts. No doubt words, in the 
course of time, modify their meaning ; but we can 
in general discern the cause, and mark the extent, 
and trace the progress of the modification : so that 
words still prove safe guides in exploring the realms 
of antiquity. If supposed changes in diction are 
many and great — here varying and there reversing 
its sense — we have reason to pause and doubt before 
yielding to them our assent. Should it be alleged 
that bishops gradually extended their range of influ- 
ence, and as ages rolled on, still added to the capa- 
ciousness and imperativeness of their sway, till the 
name bishop came to include a varied power beyond 
what it originally expressed, there is here a modifi- 
cation of language, accounted for by a not unnatural 
alteration of circumstances. But when we are told 
that the title apostle was dropped though the office 
was upheld — -that bishops also surrendered the name 
of bishops, and thereafter passed it over to apostles, 
no longer so called, and now in want of a distinguish- 
ing appellation — there appears in all this a complica- 
tion of revolutions in language resembling, if not 
outrivalling, the contortions and inversions of strata 
discovered by geologists in the crust of the earth, 
for which cycles of ages are deemed necessary to 
account. Bishop Onderdonk is entitled to support 
his position by examples of terms altering their sig- 
nification ; and if they are in point, we are bound to 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



199 



receive them as proof of such changes as he contends 
for being possible. " One irregularity in regard to 
the application of names/' he says, " is particularly 
worthy of notice. The word Sabbath is applied in 
Scripture to only the Jewish day of rest ; by very 
common use, however, it means the Lord's-day. Now, 
the Sabbath is abolished by Christianity, and the 
observance of it discountenanced ; yet ministers of 
Christian denominations are constantly urging their 
Christian flocks to keep the Sabbath."* We were 
told that the apostolic office is continued while the 
name is dropped. Is the Sabbath then continued ? 
Bishop Onderdonk assures us that it is abolished : so 
far the parallelism fails. Apostles, we are informed, 
lost the name apostles, and bishops lost the name 
bishops : has the first day of the week lost its appel- 
lation? No, it is still called the first day of the 
week, and the Lord's-day ; and so there is no ex- 
ample here of a title passing into desuetude. This 
is another defect in the comparison. All that can 
be alleged is, that when the day of Christ's resurrec- 
tion is called the Sabbath, a new institution gets an 
old name. But a large proportion of Christians do 
not regard the institution as essentially new. They 
believe that the Lord's-day replaces the Sabbath, 
and perpetuates the principle of devoting one day 
out of seven expressly to God's worship, and fulfils 
the same ends of humanity and devotion. If the 
institutions are believed to have so much in common, 
or rather to be in substance identical, can we wonder 

* Episcopacy Tested by Scripture, p. 17. 



200 



ON THE SUBORDINATION OF 



that they should receive occasionally the same desig- 
nation ? Surely a change in language thus simple, 
and single, and easily accounted for, appears very 
diminutive beside the metamorphoses of signification 
which it is adduced to countenance. Bishop Onder- 
donk is not more happy in another example, when he 
tells us that " the original meaning of emperor (im-. 
perator) was only a general, but it was afterwards 
appropriated to the monarch : and the original mean- 
ing of bishop was only a presbyter, but the name 
passed from that middle grade to the highest."* 
We can easily enough understand how presbyter- 
bishops should gradually slide into prelatical bishops 
— the men rising in their pretensions, and upbearing 
their titles with them. What we find most startling 
and most unusual is the alleged abandonment of dignity. 
When the tide of aggrandisement had set in, and was 
already flowing with no feeble current towards its 
consummation in Popery, that a whole order of men, 
who were truly and rightfully apostles, should spon- 
taneously lay down the most honoured of appellations 
and adopt another in its stead, hitherto the charac- 
teristic of inferiors, appears a miracle of voluntary 
humiliation; and after all the illustrations which 
Bishop Onderdonk has supplied, I must pronounce 
it alike unexplained and unexampled. 

But the alleged transposition of titles is proved, 
we are told, from history. " It was after the apos- 
tolic age," says Bishop Onderdonk, " that the name 
bishop was taken from the second order and applied 

* Episcopacy Tested by Scripture, p. 15. 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



201 



to the first, as we learn from Theodoret, one of the 
Fathers."* Nothing is said here about the disap- 
pearance of the title apostle. We are not so much 
as told whether it was "taken from" its owners or 
thrown aside by their own act. But suppose that 
the statement of Theodoret comprised the whole case, 
what is his testimony worth ? Eusebius, who flour- 
ished in the third and fourth centuries, having written 
a passage which seemed very unequivocally to coun- 
tenance ordination by presbyters, and this passage 
having been quoted by Presbyterians, Bishop Onder- 
donk replies — "Eusebius here describes what took 
place long before his own time, and what therefore 
he knew but imperfectly." f But Theodoret wrote 
fully a century later, and he refers to an epoch still 
earlier, and must he not then give his testimony 
under all the disadvantages of imperfect knowledge ? 
Bunsen says, regarding writers of the fourth century, 
that they were only critics, and most of them very 
indifferent and biassed ones. J For a writer of the 
fifth century to tell us what magical vicissitudes befel 
names in the age just following the apostolic, is to 
come late indeed to the help of the hierarchy. But 
is there no earlier witness ? None, or he would have 
been called. Surely some of the apostles would 
object to lay down their honoured title, and accept 
another less honourable. Right good reasons could 
they have urged for their reluctance. " If we sur- 
render the name of apostles," they might have said, 

* Episcopacy Tested by Scripture, p. 15. f Ibid., p. 41. 
t Hippolytus and his Age, vol. i., let. v., p. 321. 



202 



ON THE SUBORDINATION OF 



" it will be naturally inferred that we have disclaimed 
the office. If we take the title of bishops, it will of 
course be understood that we laid claim to no higher 
grade ; and thus future ages will be snared by our 
versatility into misapprehension and strife. And 
why should we part with a name which the mouth 
of the Lord has named for us, or rob inferiors of 
their appropriate designation to clothe ourselves 
with the spoil?" But there is no record, no vestige 
of any such controversy. All the parties interested 
in retaining the title apostles, or the title bishops, 
surrendered to some unimaginable necessity without 
a struggle, so indifferent to the fact as to say nothing 
about it; and in evidence that such a fact ever 
happened, we must take the word of Theodoret. 
What he may say on such a subject is of little 
moment. But the circumstance that none testified 
before him to the transference of titles, upwards and 
downwards, from grade to grade, is of mighty signifi- 
cance, and stamps on the whole theory the palpable 
impress of a modern imagination. 

But Bishop Onderdonk has some Scripture for this 
article of belief. i c It is perhaps worthy of remark/' 
he says, "that the word 6 apostle' occurs nowhere in 
the gospel of St John ; [xiii. 16, forms no exception; 
compare Matt. x. 24 ; Luke vi. 40. Besides, ch. xv. 
20 shows that the latter clause of ch. xiii. 16 is merely 
expletive of the preceding clause; and therefore 
aKGtfro'kog is not used in its proper sense. — Ed.] 
6 disciple' being generally substituted for it. Neither 
does it occur in his epistles : nor in the Revelation ; 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



203 



except in ii. 2, where it is applied to the impostors, 
and in ch. xviii. 20, where, engrafted into an exalta- 
tion of the latter days, it refers (as in xxi. 14) to the 
inspired founders of Christianity. All these writings 
belong to the close of the first century. By not 
calling the * angels' either apostles or bishops, St 
John conformed to the then unsettled use of those 
words. And by calling the twelve ' disciples' only, 
instead of apostles, he avoided giving them a title 
which he withheld from their official compeers, the 
' angels/ We build nothing on these facts and 
explanations, but they certainly harmonise well with 
the historical declaration, that ministers of the 
Episcopal grade were originally called apostles ; but, 
as the first century was passing into the second, that 
name was relinquished, and that of bishop assumed." * 
Without discussing in what sense John used the term 
"apostles" on other occasions, I only ask how the 
writer expects to evade the force of Rev. xviii. 20, 
and Rev. xxi. 14, by saying that these passages refer 
to the inspired founders of Christianity ? " Rejoice 
over her, ye holy apostles and prophets." " And 
the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in 
them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb." 
These latter words not only make mention of the 
apostles under their appropriate title, but assign to 
them a distinctive number, a distinctive position, a 
distinctive influence, and in every way mark them off 
from that throng of functionaries with whom Bishop 
Onderdonk confounds them. " The constant and 

* Episcopacy Tested by Scripture. Appen., p. 12. 



204 



ON THE SUBORDINATION OF 



undeniable parallel," says Lightfoot, " which is made 
betwixt the twelve patriarchs and the twelve apostles 
by the New Testament in the four and twenty elders 
(Rev. iv. 4), and in the gates and foundations of 
the new Jerusalem (Rev. xxi. 12-14), doth argue 
and prove the latter order as unimitable as the 
first"* 

There is another element which must be taken into 
account. It was to the writer's purpose to show, not 
simply that in the close of John's life the title of 
apostle was going out, but also that the title of bishop 
in lieu of apostle was coming in. But John never 
calls an apostle a bishop ; and what is yet more 
remarkable, he never uses the word bishop nor any 
of its cognate terms at all. Such being th§ case, the 
keenest friends of Episcopacy w T ill hold Bishop 
Onderdonk justified in " building nothing on these 
facts and explanations." 



CHAPTER V. 

Sect. I.— Episcopacy, in its scriptural argument, confounds 
orders widely separated in the New Testament, classing 
under one grade the twelve, Timothy and Titus, and the 
angels of the churches of Asia— The title Apostle some- 
times used generally in the sense of messenger— Examples 
— Apostles, in the official sense of the term, were made 
cognisant of the whole counsel of God in the gospel by 
immediate inspiration— They required to have seen the 

* On the Acts, ch. viii. v. 17. 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 205 

risen Saviour that theymight be witnesses of his resurrection 
— Examination of the objection, that Timothy and others, 
without this qualification, were called Apostles — The 
Apostles, besides working miracles, were empowered to 
confer miraculous gifts on others— From such considera- 
tions, it appears that the apostolic office was extraordinary 
and temporary, and that the apostles have no successors. 

The second difficulty which presents itself in a 
ministry of three orders, is the identification it 

MAKES AMONG OFFICE-BEARERS WHO IN SCRIPTURE 
ARE DISTINGUISHED, AND EVEN WIDELY DISSOCIATED. 

Bishop Onderdonk speaks (page 40) of " the office 
of the apostles, and of Timothy and Titns, and the 
seven angels/' Would any simple reader of the New 
Testament, who had no theory to prove, and no 
purpose to serve, find or imagine that Paul and 
Timothy had the same official standing ? And if this 
equalization were effected, would it prepare him to 
include in the same list the Asiatic angels ? The 
apostleship, by this theory, gains little in its pro- 
gress — rather it becomes small by degrees, and 
beautifully less. Timothy appears very secondary 
beside Paul ; and the angels are but local men, with 
circumscribed influence, beside Timothy. And yet 
Bishop Onderdonk assures us — and the Episcopal 
hypothesis requires us to believe — that the twelve 
apostles and the seven angels were " official compeers." 
Let us see how this official sameness manifests itself 
in the New Testament. Bishop Onderdonk is at 
much pains to prove what nobody disputes, that 
Timothy had a higher office than elders, the stated 
office-bearers of the church. In demonstrating this 



206 



ON THE SUBORDINATION OF 



undisputed point, the Bishop says, " Let any one 
read Acts xx. 28-35, and consider well what St Paul 
there gives as a charge to the elders (presbyters or 
presbyter-bishops) of Ephesus. Then let him read 
the two epistles to Timothy, and reflect candidly on 
the charge which the same apostle gives to him 
personally (Timothy) at Ephesus. And after this 
comparison of the charges, let him decide whether 
Scripture does not set that one individual above those 
elders in ecclesiastical rights," &c* We admit the 
interval between Timothy and the elders, but we 
think that the apostle, in establishing it, exhibits a 
not less considerable chasm between Timothy and 
himself. Very noticeable is the demarcation here 
presented between the party charging and the .party 
charged : " This charge I commit unto thee, son 
Timothy." f " These things I write unto thee, hoping 
to come unto thee shortly. But if I tarry long, that 
thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave 
thyself in the house of God," &c.J "I give thee 
charge in the sight of God, . . . that thou keep 
this commandment," &c.§ " Hold fast the form of 
sound words which thou hast heard of me." || " Con- 
sider what I say."*[[ " Study to show thyself approved 
unto God."** "Flee also youthful lusts/'ff "I 
charge thee before God, . . . preach the word." 

* Episcopacy Tested by Scripture, p. 31. Bishop Skinner 

and others had used the same argument. See Primitive Truth 
and Order, ch. ii. p. 180. 

1 1 Tim. i. 18. || 2 Tim. i. 13. ft 2 Tim. ii. 22. 

t lb. iii. 14, 15. t lb. ii. 7. JJ lb. iv. 1, 2. 
* § lb. vi. 13, 14. ** lb. ii. 15. 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



207 



"Watch thou in all things."* "Do thy diligence 
to come shortly unto me." f "Do thy diligence to 
come before winter/' J The same apostle speaks in 
like terms to Titus, another of his alleged official 
compeers : " For this cause left I thee in Crete, that 
thou shouldest set in order the things that are want- 
ing, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed 
thee."§ "Speak thou the things which become 
sound doctrine ; these things speak and exhort," 
&c. [| Is this the style of address from one apostle 
to another ? or is not all probability outraged by the 
allegation, that we have here the language of equal 
to equal, and both of them diocesans ? If by such 
phraseology official equality is proved, we beg at least 
to know by what selection or combination of terms 
the supposition of it could be confuted. 

Let us look a little more particularly at the scrip- 
tural characters grouped together by Episcopalians 
in their highest order, and direct our attention in 
successive chapters to the apostles, the evangelists, 
and the Asiatic angels, with the immediate view of as- 
certaining whether they held the same office. If it be 
proved that they did not hold the same office, our se- 
cond main objection to Episcopacy will be established. 

We have here The Apostles. The title signifies, 
derivatively, one sent forth, or a messenger, and 
sometimes it is used in this primary and unofficial 
sense. Many other terms have, in like manner, a 
general and an appropriated signification. Of course, 

* 2 Tim. iv. 5. + lb. iv. 9. $ lb. iv. 21. 

I Tit. i. 5. || lb. ii. 1, 15. 



208 



ON THE SUBORDINATION OF 



the question arises, wherever these terms occur, 
whether they are used in the one way or the other ; 
and there is occasional difficulty in deciding the point. 
If it were said that certain men had a difference, and 
that a certain other man judged between them, we 
might be at a loss whether this mediating party was 
really a judge, or whether he merely gave the dis- 
putants the benefit of his judgment. In one or two 
instances, there is a little obscurity of this nature 
. hanging over the use of the term apostle. But the 
obscuration is rare and faint indeed. " The name of 
6 apostles/ " says Lightfoot, " keepeth itself unmixed 
or confounded with any other order. It is true 
indeed that the significancy of the word would agree 
to other ministers that are to preach ; but there is a 
peculiar propriety in the sense that hath confined the 
title to the twelve and Paul, as any indifferent eye 
will judge and censure, upon the weighing of it in 
the New Testament."* It is universally admitted, 
that the word apostle had an official sense ; and the 
" marks of an apostle" are more definite and more 
readily recognised than those perhaps of any other 
functionary. 

That apostles must have been numerous, Dr 
Onderdonk argues from the mention occasionally 
made of false apostles. He reminds us of the 
commendation bestowed on the angel of Ephesus : 
" Thou hast tried them who say they are apostles, and 
are not, and hast found them liars."f And who were 

* On the Acts, chap. viii. 17. 

t Episcopacy Tested by Scripture, p. 36. 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



209 



these pretence apostles ? " Their assuming the title 
of apostles/' says Dr Onderdonk, " shows that there 
were enough of others (besides those usually so 
called) who had this title to make their pretended 
claim to it plausible."* But if these false teachers 
are not called apostles merely to show their arro- 
gance, and as we speak of " an apostle of mischief ;" 
if they in good earnest laid claim to the apostleship, 
and supported their claim by " plausible" arguments, 
then what do we make of several seeming apostles 
in single churches, where Episcopacy can afford only 
one bishop to a whole diocese ? And in what 
capacity did the angel try a number of apostolic 
claimants ? We have no modern dignitary compe- 
tent for that task. I suspect that spurious apostles 
are not likely to be more serviceable to Dr Onder- 
donk' s cause than they proved to the Christian church. 
This example can establish nothing decisively, since 
false apostles were confessedly no apostles at all. 

" I supposed it necessary," says Paul, " to send to 
you Epaphroditus, my brother, and companion in 
labour, and fellow-soldier, but your messenger, (lite- 
rally apostle,) and he that ministered to my wants." f 
Some, in their eagerness to multiply apostles, place 
this Epaphroditus among the number.^ But he is not 
called an apostle; he is called your apostle. The 
name befitted Epaphroditus only in relation to those 
addressed; and where do we ever find the apostleship 

* Episcopacy Tested by Scripture, p. 20. f Phil. ii. 25. 
t Bishop Skinner, for example, in his Primitive Truth and 
Order, chap. ii. p. 184. 

O 



210 



ON THE SUBORDINATION OF 



of one of the twelve so restricted ? Farther, the 
context shows that Epaphroditus had a message or 
commission from the Philippians, and consequently 
was their messenger, though they could not have 
monopolised an apostle. "I have all, and abound," 
says Paul : " I am full, having received of Epaphro- 
ditus the things which were sent from you."* The 
Christians at Philippi sent things to Paul by Epa- 
phroditus — was not Epaphroditus their messenger? 
The disputed passage itself has evident reference to 
this appointment: "Your messenger, and he that 
ministered to my wants." How did Epaphroditus 
minister to Paul's wants? — by conveying to him 
things needful from the Philippians. It was kind in 
the Christians at Philippi to furnish these supplies — 
it was kind in Epaphroditus to be the personal bearer 
of them; and is not the twofold kindness delicately 
but unequivocally owned in the words, " Your mes- 
senger, and he that ministered to my wants ?"- — your 
messenger, in getting a charge from you for me ; and 
he that ministered to my wants, as he faithfully exe- 
cuted his labour of love in my behalf. The messenger, 
as distinguishable from the apostle, officially so called, 
is clearly exhibited in such language. 

But how shall apostles, in the appropriated sense of 
the term, be discriminated from other functionaries? 
We have found Paul saying to Timothy, " Hold fast 
the form of sound words which thou hast heard of 
me."f This verse, and others similar, present Paul 
as having indoctrinated Timothy in the embassage he 

* Phil. iv. 18. t 2 Tim. i. 13. 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



211 



was to deliver; and Bishop Onderdonk admits (Note 
I., p. 51) that Timothy was not inspired. How does 
Paul speak of his own initiation in the knowledge of 
the gospel? " I certify you, brethren, that the gospel 
which was preached of me is not after man. For I 
neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, 
but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."* The apostle 
expresses himself to the same effect on various occa- 
sions ; and the two classes of passages brought together 
evolve this difference between Timothy and Paul — 
that Timothy had his instructions instrumentally 
from Paul, while Paul had his instructions directly 
from heaven. In other words, the apostles were 

AT ONCE MADE COGNISANT BY INSPIRATION OF THAT 
WHOLE COUNSEL OF GOD WHICH THEY SHUNNED NOT 

TO declare. We learn from the opening verses of 
the Acts of the Apostles, that our Lord led them to 
expect this extraordinary illumination as one of their 
distinguishing privileges: "He was taken up, after 
that he through the Holy Ghost had given command- 
ment unto the apostles whom he had chosen 

And, being assembled together with them, he com- 
manded them that they should not depart from Jeru- 
salem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, 
saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptised 
with water; but ye shall be baptised with the Holy 
Ghost not many days hence." f 
Another qualification indispensable to an apostle was 

THE COMPETENCY OF TESTIFYING FROM PERSONAL OB- 
SERVATION TO THE FACT OF CHRIST'S RESURRECTION. 



* Gal. i. 11, 12. 



f Acts i. 2, 4, 5. 



212 



ON THE SUBORDINATION OF 



No one could be an apostle who had not seen Jesus 
alive after his decease. Of no avail is the reply of 
Bishop Onderdonk — "Nor were the apostles thus 
distinguished because they had seen our Lord after 
his resurrection; for five hundred brethren saw him," 
&c* It is not alleged that every one who saw the 
risen Saviour was thereby constituted an apostle ; but 
it is alleged that such a sight of Christ was indispen- 
sable to the apostleship. Apart from the controversy 
between Episcopalians and Presbyterians, there are 
difficulties connected with the elevation of Matthias to 
the apostolic office, as it was proceeded in while the 
disciples were waiting for the promise of the Father, 
and were not yet baptised with the Holy Ghost for 
the official engagements of the evangelical dispensa- 
tion. But if the appointment of Matthias be held to 
have been regular and valid, it will establish, as Light- 
foot has shown, and not disprove, the extraordinary 
and temporary character of the trust to which he was 
preferred. " The apostles," says that learned com- 
mentator, " could not ordain an apostle by imposition 
of hands; but they are forced to use a divine lot, 
which was as the immediate hand of Christ imposed 
on him that was to be ordained : that opinion took 
little notice of this circumstance that hath placed 
bishops in the place of the apostles by a common and 
successive ordination." f As regards the point under 
more immediate consideration, we find Peter most 

* Episcopacy Tested by Scripture, p. 20. So also Bishop 
Skinner's Primitive Truth and Order, chap. ii. p. 190. 
t On the Acts, chap. i. 21. 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



213 



particularly declaring, that the choice must of neces- 
sity be among those who had beheld the risen 
Eedeemer : " Wherefore of these men which have 
companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus 
went in and out among us, beginning from the bap- 
tism of John, unto that same day that he was taken 
up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness 
with us of his resurrection/' * This condition of the 
apostleship is held forth most prominently throughout 
the New Testament : " Thus it behoved Christ to 
suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day ; and 
ye are witnesses of these things." f " This Jesus 
hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses." J 
" Whom God raised from the dead ; whereof we are 
witnesses." § " With great power gave the apostles 
witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus." || 
" Peter and the other apostles said, The God of our 
fathers raised up Jesus. Him hath God exalted with 
his right hand. And we are his witnesses of these 
things." If In these passages, "apostles" and wit- 
nesses to Christ's resurrection appear as allied, and 
almost convertible appellations. That Paul might 
join in the apostolic testimony, he was preternaturally 
favoured with a sight of the risen Saviour : " Last 
of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of 
due time : for I am the least of the apostles." ** 
The apostles, then, were witnesses to Christ's resur- 
rection — such witness-bearing was essential to their 

* Acts i. 21, 22. f Luke xxiv. 46, 48. i Acts ii. 32. 
i Acts iii. 15. II Acts iv. 33. H Acts v. 30-32. 

** 1 Cor. xv. 8. 



214 



ON THE SUBORDINATION OF 



apostleship — and it is remarkable that the title wit- 
ness, assigned so frequently to them, is used of no 
others as office-bearers. So broad and clear is the 
induction by which we show that a personal testi- 
mony to Christ's rising was of the essence of the 
apostolic embassage. And when this position has 
been made good by such plentiful and unequivocal 
proof, we feel warranted in explaining by it a few 
phrases which, separately regarded, might have borne 
a different interpretation ; and in saying that if 
Timothy, Silvanus, Andronicus, Junia, &c, receive 
this appellation, they were such apostles as Epa- 
phroditus was — messengers, but not " called to be 
apostles" in the special and official sense of the 
expression. Bishop Onderdonk himself admits that 
"the twelve apostles were selected as special wit- 
nesses of the resurrection." * This is befitting lan- 
guage. It is not said twelve of the apostles, but the 
twelve apostles ; and they are characterised not 
simply as witnesses, but as " special witnesses of the 
resurrection.'" So difficult is it, with the New Tes- 
tament in our hands, to deny to the apostles an 
appointment which belonged to them only, and which 
therefore ceased with themselves. 

And where are Timothy and Sylvanus called apos- 
tles ? Nowhere directly. But Paul begins an epistle 
by saying, " Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto 
the Church of the Thessalonians and in the sixth 
verse of the second chapter of that epistle,f he says, 
" We [the parties named in the inscription, says Dr 

* Episcopacy Tested by Scripture, p. 20. t f 1 Thes. ii. 6. 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



215 



Onderdonk] might have been burdensome, as the 
apostles of Christ." So very much has been made of 
this circumstance, that I am obliged to give it a some- 
what ample consideration. In reply, I remark — 

(1.) That the headings of Paul's epistles and their 
contents have no such punctilious coherence as this argu- 
ment supposes. They were still his epistles, though 
others concurred with him in sending them ; and 
under the term " we " he sometimes includes only 
himself, and sometimes other parties than he had 
named in the salutation. In the second chapter and 
third verse of the epistle in question it is said, " We 
sent Timotheus to establish you." If the term "we" 
must be understood strictly of the persons named in 
the inscription, we have here Timothy sending him- 
self. In the commencement of the first epistle to the 
Corinthians, Paul associates Sosthenes with himself. 
But there is in the epistle no other allusion to that 
" brother." Where " we " afterwards occurs, as it 
does repeatedly, the context always shows that Sos- 
thenes is not intended specially, if at all. In the 
inscription of the second epistle to the Corinthians, 
Paul associates with himself Timothy. But in some 
passages of that epistle he evidently means by we the 
inspired apostles. Thus it is said, " God, who com- 
manded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined 
in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of 
the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."* This 
language was applicable to those who had their know- 
ledge of the gospel by immediate revelation, but 

* 2 Cor. iv. 6. 



216 



ON THE SUBORDINATION OF 



did not apply to Timothy, who, as Bishop Onder- 
donk admits, was not inspired, and was instructed by 
Paul. 

; (2.) To whomsoever the term "we" in 1 Thess. ii. 6, 
may pertain, it does not seem to relate to Timothy. Mr 
Barnes justly calls attention to verse second of the 
same chapter, where Paul says, "We had suffered 
before, and were shamefully entreated, as ye know, 
at Philippi." We read of Paul and Silas having 
suffered, and been shamefully entreated at Philippi ;* 
but nothing of the kind is narrated of Timothy. To 
say that he may, notwithstanding, have been there, 
and may have suffered, and been evil entreated in 
some way not told, is rather to make a history than 
to receive one. 

(3.) In 1 Thess. ii. 6 — the passage in question — 
Paul probably uses the plural " we " with a singular 
sense. He says in the same chapter, verse 18, " We 
would have come unto you, even I Paul, once and 
again : but Satan hindered us." Bishop Onderdonk 
replies, "It is not unusual, indeed, for St Paul to use 
the plural number of himself only ; but the w r ords 
6 apostles ' and ' our own souls ' (verse 8), being 
inapplicable to the singular use of the plural number, 
shows that the three names at the head of this epistle 
are here spoken of jointly. And thus Silas and 
Timothy are, with Paul, recognised in this passage of 
Scripture as ' apostles.' "f Although it were shown 
that the term " we " had in this passage a plural 

* Actsxxvi. 

t Episcopacy Tested by Scripture, p. 55. 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



217 



signification, additional proof would need to be ad- 
duced that Timothy is included. We have seen that 
there is no such connection usually between the 
headings of Paul's epistles and their contents as to 
determine this point. By " apostles," Paul might 
mean the apostles, emphatically so called ; or he might 
use the word in its general acceptation of messengers, 
heralds of Christ. When it suits his purpose, Bishop 
Onderdonk contends (page 45) for the term "apostle" 
not being used in its proper sense. Why fix on it 
its proper sense in this connection ? Paul does not 
elsewhere say of apostles only that they might de- 
volve on the churches the burden of their support. 
He lays down the general maxim, that the labourer 
is worthy of his hire; and why may he not be here 
also understood to say that Christ's messengers are 
entitled to support from his people ? Although, then, 
the term " we 99 were proved to have here a plural 
sense, it might not include Timothy ; and although 
it were proved to include Timothy, he might be called 
an apostle only as being a minister of Christ. So far 
are the premises of Bishop Onderdonk from being 
commensurate with his conclusion. We do not admit, 
however, that the plural sense of the plural pronoun 
is established by him. Paul says "apostles" and 
" souls 99 in conjunction with " we." What of that ? 
If, in speaking of himself, he used the plural at all, 
would he not naturally and fitly use the plural through- 
out, and maintain consistency in his language ? He 
does so on other occasions. I shall notice only one 
example which Bishop Onderdonk has attempted to 



218 



ON THE SUBORDINATION OF 



set aside, but in vain. Paul says, " I have said before, 
that ye are in our hearts to die and live with you."* 
The reference to what was " said before," carries us 
back to the 11th and 12th verses of the preceding 
chapter : " ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto 
you, our heart is enlarged ! " The plural hearts of 
the one passage is explained by the singular heart of 
the other, and both are expressive of Pauls affection. 
" No," replies Bishop Onderdonk, u 'our heart' is a 
general or collective phrase : " Paul thus speaks for 
himself and others collectively. Such an explanation 
is chill and constrained in the extreme. To make 
Paul speak at a peradventure for others, is here to 
extinguish the fire of his eloquence. The power and 
spirit of the phraseology depend entirely on its certain 
and felt truth. Who can rid himself of callous criti- 
cism, and candidly peruse these words, " O ye Cor- 
inthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is 
enlarged ! 99 and not read in them a conscious enlarge- 
ment of heart — an irrepressible burst of personal emo- 
tion ? 

Such objections, therefore, do not shake the pro- 
bability that Paul uses plural language with a singu- 
lar sense in the sixth verse, as he does confessedly in 
the 18th verse of the second chapter of 1 Thess., and 
that he is speaking of himself when he says, " We 
might have been burdensome to you as apostles of 
Christ." 

On various occasions he speaks in a way leading 
us clearly to infer that Timothy was not an apostle. 

* 2 Cor. vii. 3. 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



219 



The first epistle to the Corinthians thus commences, 
" Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, 
and Timothy our brother." The mere circumstance 
of calling Timothy a brother, is not the main stum- 
bling-block to Episcopacy exhibited in this inscrip- 
tion. The connection in which it occurs constitutes 
the grand difficulty. Why did Paul here introduce 
his own apostleship with so much solemnity and 
amplitude of language ? Was it not to get suitable 
respect for his official standing and duties ? But if 
so, did not Timothy equally need all the homage due 
to his functions ? Is there any likelihood that Paul 
would do so much justice to himself, and in the same 
sentence be so wanting to an official " compeer ? " 
He enjoined on Timothy a carefulness to let no man 
despise his youth. But if Timothy was an apostle, 
how could Paul more effectually have silenced the 
despisers of that fellow-labourer than by asserting, 
clearly and emphatically, his apostleship ? He does 
this for himself once and again and often; but never 
for Timothy. Nay, in the act of avowing himself an 
apostle, he withholds the title from Timothy, w T hom 
he calls simply brother. Such a procedure on the 
part of the generous Paul, forces on us the conviction 
that the epithet " brother " is here discriminative in 
its relation to the designation " apostle," and marks 
a wide interval in the positions respectively denoted 
by them. So much is this the case, that Archbishop 
Potter supposes Timothy to have accompanied Paul 
in the capacity of a deacon. Bishop Onderdonk is 
very displeased with his Grace for holding such a 



220 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF 

notion : " The cause of the mistake of this able 
defender of Episcopacy seems to have been twofold. 
He overlooked the passage referred to, which speaks 
of Timothy as an apostle ; and he was misled by the 
word dtoMovovvrw in Acts xix. 22, where it is said 
that Timothy and Erastus ' ministered ' unto Paul ; 
which he supposes to mean 'were Paul's deacons/ 
This is but the old error, so often exposed, of arguing 
from names instead of facts."* That Archbishop 
Potter overlooked 1 Thess. ii. 6, is by no means 
likely. He, probably, was of the same mind with 
ourselves that it assigns no apostleship to Timothy. 
But in considering Timothy a deacon, he fell, it 
seems, into the old error of arguing from names. 
And what is Bishop Onderdonk here doing but 
arguing from names, — from the name apostle, sup- 
posed to be given once by implication to Timothy ? 
At best, this is a narrow and critical foundation on 
which to rear Timothy's apostleship ; but it has no 
other. As for Titus, the title is wholly wanting for 
him, and cannot be made good to him even by 
inference or implication. On the whole, the attempt 
to establish exceptions to the apostolic qualification of 
having seen the risen Saviour, has no semblance of 
success in opposition to the clear, decisive, and ac- 
cumulated evidence of the rule, that the apostles had 
a special commission to attest Christ's resurrection 
from the dead, and that persons incompetent to give 
this testimony were ineligible to the apostleship. 
I only remark farther, in regard to the peculiar 

* Episcopacy Tested by Scripture, p. 58. 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



221 



qualifications of the apostles, that they had not 

ONLY THE GIFT OP MIRACLES IN A NOTABLE AND UN- 
USUAL DEGREE, BUT THE SINGULAR POWER OF CON- 
FERRING miraculous gifts on others. " When the 
covetous Simon saw that through the laying on of 
the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he 
offered them money, saying, Give me also this power, 
that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the 
Holy Ghost/' * Paul had this qualification ; and 
having, in virtue of it, communicated preternatural 
gifts to the Christians at Corinth, he could say to 
them, ^ I am become a fool in glorying : ye have 
compelled me : for I ought to have been commended 
of you ; for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest 
apostles, though I be nothing. Truly the signs of 
an apostle were wrought among you, in all patience, 
in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds." | 

From all this it appears that the apostles had dis- 
tinctive seals of office ; and the possession of certain 
qualifications by all of them is the more remarkable, 
that one of their number did not obtain these in the 
same manner as the rest, and yet was provided with 
them in a way suitable to his circumstances. This 
conclusion is not held by Presbyterians alone : it is 
acquiesced in by able writers of all ages and parties. 
Augustine expressly maintained that the office of an 
apostle was above that of bishop. J So did Jerome, 
as we have found Bishop Burnet frankly acknowledg- 
ing. Dr Barrow, an eminent Episcopal writer, shows, 

* Acts viii. 18, 19. t 2 Cor. xii. 11, 12. 

t De Bapt. C. Don. ii. 1. 



222 



ON THE SUBORDINATION OF 



with many citations from the fathers in support of 
the proposition, that " the apostolical office, as such, 
was personal and temporary, and, therefore, accord- 
ing to its nature and design, not successive nor com- 
municable to others in perpetual descendence from 
them." He concludes an ample array of proof by 
saying, " Such an office, consisting of so many extra- 
ordinary privileges and miraculous powers which were 
requisite for the foundation of the church and the 
diffusion of Christianity, against the manifold diffi- 
culties and disadvantages which it then mu$ needs 
encounter, was not designed to continue by deriva- 
tion; for it containeth in it divers things which 
apparently were not communicated, and which no 
man without gross imposture and hypocrisy could 
challenge to himself. Neither did the apostles pre- 
tend to communicate it; they did, indeed, appoint 
standing pastors and teachers in each church ; they 
did assume fellow-labourers and assistants in the 
work of preaching and governance ; but they did not 
constitute apostles equal to themselves in authority, 
privileges, or gifts. For who knoweth not (saith St 
Augustine) that principate of apostleship to be pre- 
ferred before any Episcopacy ? and the bishops (saith 
Bellarmine) have no part of the true apostolical 
authority/' * Lightfoot, in his commentary on the 
Acts, is cogent on behalf of the same conclusions. 
Living authors express like views ; and Archbishop 
Whately merely gives utterance to the sentiments of 
moderate Episcopalians in general, when he says, 
* Works, vol. i., pp. 594, 595. London, 1741. 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



223 



" Successors in the apostolic office the apostles have 
none. As personal attendants on the Lord Jesus, and 
witnesses of his resurrection — as dispensers of miracu- 
lous gifts — as inspired oracles of divine revelation — 
they have no successors. But as members, as ministers, 
as governors, of Christian communities, their succes- 
sors are the regularly admitted members, the lawfully 
ordained ministers, the regular and recognised gover- 
nors, of a regularly subsisting Christian church." * 



CHAPTER V. 

Sect. II.— The ministry of Timothy and Titus considered — 
They were invested with high powers, but these powers 
were held and exercised in subordination to Apostles- 
Timothy was not Bishop of Ephesus, nor Titus of Crete — 
By the showing of Episcopalians, Timothy and Titus were 
not merely Bishops, but Archbishops ; and this preferment 
of these office-bearers is fatal to the argument derived from 
their practice against Presbyterian ordination. 

In following out our second great objection to Pre- 
lacy, that it confounds orders which Scripture dis- 
tinguishes, let us consider more specially the post 
filled by Timothy and Titus, to see whether it be 
identical with that of the twelve. Some Episcopalian 
writers, without contending that Timothy and Titus 
are called apostles in the New Testament, yet lay 
great stress on their ministry as having been prelatic. 
These teachers were, indeed, honoured and eminent 
* Whately on the Kingdom of Christ, pp. 276, 277. 



224 ON THE SUBORDINATION OP 



servants of Christ; and if modern bishops could 
establish a good title to their position and its powers, 
the defence of Presbyterian parity might be aban- 
doned as hopeless. Everything that Paul could do 
in person he orders these office-bearers to do in his 
absence. They are commissioned to set churches in 
order, to prove and examine deacons, to ordain both 
deacons and elders, to suppress heterodoxy, punish 
offenders, and enforce a pure administration of word 
and sacraments. They exhibit, in relation to the 
churches, a supreme power ; but then, in relation to 
Paul, they present a not less unqualified subordina- 
tion. " They were attached/' says Mr F. W. New- 
man, * " to the person of the apostle, and not to any 
one church/' His presidency did not terminate with 
their ordination : he continued to direct them. He 
told them what they were to do, and how they were 
to do it ; he sent them, and he sent for them. Like 
a master speaking to servants, he said, Go, and they 
went ; or, Do this, and they did it ; and all their 
movements he made subsidiary to his own. This 
charge I commit unto thee — These things I write 
that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave 
thyself — I charge thee — Do thy diligence to come 
shortly unto me — Take Mark, and bring him with 
thee — For this cause left I thee in Crete — These 
things speak and exhort — When I shall send Arte- 
mas unto thee, or Tychicus, be diligent to come 
unto me to Nicopolis, &c. This is the language of 

* Late Fellow of Bal. Col., Oxford. See Dr Kitto's Cyclop., 
art. "Bishop. " 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



225 



authoritative direction; and as we can have no more 
superintendents of churches and church rulers them- 
selves superintended by an apostle, we equally despair 
of replacing Timothy as of replacing Paul. The 
functions of Timothy, I repeat, had a dependence as 
well as a supremacy; in the absence of either, we have 
not the same office-bearer. Timothy was exhorted to 
do the work of an evangelist; as Titus did the same 
work, the presumption is that he was an evangelist 
also. That in the primitive church there was a class 
of office-bearers distinctively called Evangelists — 
though Dr Onderdonk disputes the point — appears 
farther from Eph. iv. 11: " And he gave some 
apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and 
some pastors and teachers." , Such evangelists, while 
adapting themselves in other respects to the functions 
of the apostles whom they aided, had a remarkable 
accordance with them in this, that both classes of 
ministers fulfilled their ministry at large. Strenuous 
efforts have indeed been made to find Sees for Timothy 
and Titus. It has been often asserted and resolutely 
argued that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus, and 
Titus of Crete. But these assertions and arguments 
have little plausibility ; the simplest reading of the 
New Testament shows them to be forced in the ex- 
treme. " I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus." 
Was it needful or decent to beseech a bishop to abide 
in his diocese ? If so, the vice of clerical absenteeism, 
as has been often observed, had a very early and re- 
spectable origin. "For this cause left I thee in 
Crete." Is a bishop in his diocese from being left 

p 



226 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF 



there ? and is he left -there for a particular object, 
and not to fulfil all the duties of his episcopate? 
The epistles bear that the parties addressed had been 
fellow-travellers with Paul, and they are required to 
make all despatch to rejoin him in his journeys. In 
other portions of the New Testament we find them 
at various places with the apostle, and sharing in all 
the changefulness of his eventful pilgrimage. In the 
last notice we have of Timothy, Paul enjoins him to 
repair to Eome, " in words which prove," says Mr 
Newman, " that Timothy was not, at least as yet, 
Bishop of Ephesus, or of any other church/'* This 
view of the subject is well put by Dodwell, one of the 
stoutest champions of Episcopacy : " Many arguments 
prove that the office of Timothy was not fixed, but 
itinerary. That he had been requested to abide still 
at Ephesus, is testified by the apostle, (1 Tim. i. 3.) 
He was therefore, when requested, an itinerary. His 
work of an evangelist is proof to the same effect, (2 Tim. 
iv. 5.) His journeys so numerous with Saint Paul, 
and the junction of his name, in common with the 
apostle, in the inscriptions of the epistles to the 
Thessalonians, furnish similar proofs. In like manner, 
the same apostle commands Titus, and him only, to 
ordain, in Crete, elders in every city, (Tit. i. 5.) He 
says that he had been left to set in order things that 
were wanting. He must have been a companion of 
Paul when he was left. And truly other places also 
teach us that he was a companion of Saint Paul, and 
no more restricted to any certain locality than the 

* Dr Kitto's Cyclop., art. " Bishop." 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



227 



apostle himself."* It is true that Timothy was at 
Ephesus, and did important work there. But the 
same can be asserted with at least equal truth of his 
apostolic superior : " Watch, and remember, that by 
the space of three years, I ceased not to warn every 
one night and day with tears." f When Paul could 
so speak to the Ephesian elders, why is he not forth- 
with proclaimed Bishop of Ephesus ? J In these early 
times, Paul, Timothy, and other fellow-travellers, 
were occasionally together in the same place, so that 
a single congregation were favoured temporarily with 
a whole college of diocesans. But to counterbalance 
this extraordinary privilege, these clergymen of the 
first order were liable to quit as they had come, in 
company, and leave a church in the sad situation 

* Paroenesis, sect. x. pp. 40, 41. London, 1704. 
f Acts xx. 31. 

X There is the same sort of reason for calling Paul Bishop of 
Ephesus, as James Bishop of Jerusalem. "The power of 
James," observes Stiliingfleet, in his Irenicum, "was of the 
same nature with that of the apostles themselves. And who 
will go about to degrade them so much as to reduce them to 
the office of ordinary bishops ? James, in all probability, did 
exercise his apostleship the most at Jerusalem, where, by the 
Scriptures, we find him resident; and from hence the church 
afterwards, because of his not travelling abroad, as the other 
apostles did, according to the language of their own time, fixed 
thetitleof bishop upon him." " Such a descent,'' says Dr Brown, 
" from the office of an apostle, whose diocese was the world, 
(Matt, xxviii. 19,) to that of a bishop, whose diocese was to be 
Jerusalem, as Jewell observes, would have been in direct op- 
position to the command of Christ, and would have been as 
extraordinary, as Dr Barrow remarks, as if the King of Great 
Britain were to become Lord Mayor of London." — On Puseyite 
Episcopacy, see Letters XL and XIIL. 



228 



ON THE SUBORDINATION OF 



which Onderdonk ascribes to Ephesus, of having " no 
bishop." Truly it is hard to fit and frame together 
a primitive order and modern prelacy. 

If it be determined that Timothy and Titus were 
of the hierarchy, much remains to be settled about 
their hierarchical status. In one view, it would suit 
best that they were simply bishops. Then it might 
be inferred, since they ordained and ruled elders, that 
elders want the right to ordain and rule each other. 
So Bishops Hobart and Onderdonk will have Timothy 
and Titus to have been bishops simply. But then 
the extended range of labour comprised in the career 
of Timothy, seems to involve a presidency over bishops 
as well as presbyters. Theodoret, quoted by Epis- 
copalians in proof of the transference of the title 
bishops from presbyter-bishops to prelatic-bishops, 
says, in the same passage of which so much is made 
with so little ground, that " Titus was the apostle of 
the Cretians, and Timothy of Asia." Here Timothy 
is not simply Bishop of Ephesus, but Apostle of Asia. 
And even as regards Titus, if the seven churches of a 
region so limited as the Asia of the New Testament 
had seven angels, whom Episcopalians hold to have 
been seven bishops, then surely so considerable an 
island as Crete had more than one such dignitary t 
As a matter of fact, the earliest uninspired accounts 
assign to Crete (of apostolic times) eleven bishops. 
This view of the matter alters and elevates the position 
of Timothy and Titus. They become bishops over 
bishops ; or, as Hammond, Bull, and others, frankly 
say, " archbishops." And if Timothy and Titus, being 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



229 



over bishops, were archbishops, what was Paul, to 
whom the archbishops were subordinate? — A patriarch 
at least. A rich soil there is here for the hierarchy, 
when the highest of three orders, viz., bishops, par- 
titions itself into other three — bishops, archbishops, 
and patriarchs — and only one branch is wanting to 
complete the tree of the Papacy. It is a great pre- 
ferment to Timothy and Titus from being bishops to 
be made archbishops ; but the gain of the individuals 
incurs loss to the system. For when they were 
bishops, the fact of them ordaining was held to show 
that elders could not ordain — which incapacity of 
the presbyters brought the bishop into requisition ; 
but now that they are archbishops, the fact of them 
ordaining will equally show that suffragan bishops 
cannot ordain, else why should their metropolitan 
supersede them in the duty? But a bishop without 
power to ordain presbyters, and needing a superior 
to do it for him, is a character to be scared from all 
prelatic territory. So here is a goodly elevation to 
Timothy and Titus, but demolition and ruin to the 
argument for Episcopal ordination. We need not 
wonder that many eminent Episcopalians refuse to 
espouse an argument of which these are the issues. 
" The great controversy," says Dr Whitby, " con- 
cerning this and the Epistles to Timothy is, whether 
Timothy and Titus were indeed made bishops — the 
one of Ephesus, and the Proconsular Asia ; the other 
of Crete — having authority to make, and jurisdiction 
over, so many bishops as were in these precincts? Now, 
of this matter I confess lean find nothing in any writer 



230 



ON THE SUBORDINATION OF 



of the first three centuries, nor any intimation that they 

bore that name I assert, that if by saying 

Timothy and Titus were bishops, the one of Ephesus 
and the other of Crete, we understand that they took 
upon them these churches or dioceses as their fixed 
and peculiar charge, in which they were to preside 
for a term of life, I believe that Timothy and Titus 

were not thus bishops There is nothing 

which prov r es they did, or were, to exercise these 
acts of government rather as bishops than evange- 
lists."* 



CHAPTER V. 

Sect. III. — The Angels of the seven churches of Asia declared 
to be compeers of the Apostles — Some plausibility in the 
allegation that they were superior to Presbyters— The 
Revelation is not a book of easy interpretation— The ar- 
gument would prove too much for its friends— It is not 
supported by the use of the word Angel in other parts of 
the Apocalypse— Even in the controverted passage, our 
Lord sometimes addresses an Angel in the plural number — 
If it were proved that the angels Were Bishops, they could 
only have been Bishops of parishes, and not of dioceses. 

It remains, in regard to the attempted identification 
of certain office-bearers, to say a few words about the 
angels of the churches of Asia, claimed by Episcopa- 
lians as compeers of the apostles, and belonging with 
them to the one order — bishops. The angels were 
stated office-bearers, and they had fixed charges. 

* Commentary on Titus—Preface. 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



231 



They are also addressed as having great power and 
responsibility, without being extraordinary teachers, 
and without depending for their functions on those 
of others. In all these views, this plea has plau- 
sibility. Whether it has anything more, let the 
reader judge after pondering the following consi- 
derations : — 

1. The Revelation is confessedly an obscure booh. — 
To cite alone its symbolic phraseology against the 
general, diversified, and unfigurative language of the 
New Testament Scriptures, is to reverse the natural 
order of explaining the shadowy by the clear and the 
unclouded. 

2. The argument proves alarmingly much even for its 
friends. — It not only makes other clergymen less than 
the bishop — it makes them nothing ; they totally dis- 
appear in the absorbing lustre of prelatic ascendency. 
The elders of Ephesus, so touchingly addressed by 
Paul as having all the charge, are now denied a 
word in furtherance of their success or acknowledg- 
ment of their existence. The candlesticks are the 
churches ; the stars, the angels, are bishops ; and as 
for the elders who went to Miletus, or their successors 
in office, we are left vainly to ask, Where are they ? 
None of Paul's epistles, or Peter's, or those of any 
other apostle, were in this style. Clement of Rome, 
in writing to the Corinthians, maintains the prevail- 
ing apostolic usage of acknowledging presbyters and 
deacons alone as stated office-bearers. So does Poly- 
carp, in his Epistle to the Philippians, written about 
sixty years after Paul's to the same church. Even 



232 



ON THE SUBORDINATION OF 



Ignatius, in the Epistle to Polycarp, though he has 
been cited as using the same sort of language with 
John, speaks very differently ; for he requires sub- 
mission from the church of Smyrna to their bishop, 
with their presbyters and deacons.* And we must 
come far down in the history of usurpation and 
tyranny to find letter, decree, or bull, rivalling this 
forgetfulness of all clergymen except bishops implied 
in the angelic argument. Is not this rather much to 
be credited, or even relished ; and must there not 
be some misapprehension in such an exegesis of 
Scripture ? 

3. John uses the word angel in other portions of the 
Apocalypse, where the seme is adverse to the episcopal 
argument. — The synagogue had functionaries so called, 
and some seek there the import of the appellation. 
Certainly no ruler in the synagogue attained to such 
exclusive consequence as to present the aspect of 
annihilating his brethren, or wielded any authority 
beyond the single congregation in which he mini- 
stered, and therefore Presbyterians have no party 
reason for objecting to this reference. But the 
argument from the synagogue is involved, as we 
have seen, in much uncertainty ; and here it is much 
safer to collate John's use of the word in some 
passages with his own use of it in others. Now, the 
" angels," as the learned Joseph Mede observes, " by 
a mode of speaking not uncommon in this book, are 
put for the nations over which they were thought to 
preside ; which appears hence, that they who, by the 

* Onderdonk, p. 46. 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



233 



injunction of the oracle, are loosed, are armies of 
cavalry sent forth to slaughter men." In such a case, 
the term "angel" has not an individual signification, 
but is representative of multitudes. In more immedi- 
ate relation to our present purpose, John says, " I saw 
another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the 
everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on 
the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and 
tongue, and people."* On this passage, Dr Mason 
observes, " 6 Heaven/ in this book, is the ascertained 
symbol of the Christian church,,from which issue forth 
the ( ministers of grace' to the nations. As this 
gospel is preached only by men, this 6 angel/ who 
has it to preach to 6 every nation, and kindred, and 
tongue, and people/ must be the symbol of a human 
ministry. And as it is perfectly evident that no 
single man can thus preach it, but that there must be 
a great company of preachers to carry it to 6 every 
nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people/ the 
angel mentioned in the text is, and of necessity must 
be, the symbol of that great company. We might 
produce other examples ; but this is decisive." f In 
the fourteenth chapter, then, of the book of Kevela- 
tion, " angel" denotes a company of teachers ; is it 
incredible that, in the opening chapters of that book, 
the same symbol should have the same sense ? 

4. In the controverted chapter, our Lord sometimes 
addresses an angel in the plural number. — I know the 
reply, that in such cases our Lord passes from the 
pastor to address the flock — turns from the star to 

* Rev. xiv. 6. f Mason on Episcopacy, p. 108. 



234 



ON THE SUBORDINATION OF 



the candlestick. But this key, when it is applied, 
will not "be found so readily to unlock the difficulties 
as many have seemed to imagine. " Fear none of 
those things which thou shalt suffer : behold, the 
devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may 
be tried ; and ye shall have tribulation ten days : be 
thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a 
crown of life/'* The suffering mentioned in the 
first clause is described in the next two clauses ; had 
this identical suffering different subjects ? — now the 
pastor, now the congregation ? To sustain the per- 
secuted in their season of trial, a promise is annexed. 
A crown of life is to be given — to whom ? " Thee" — 
the bishop. And were the people to share the tribu- 
lation, while the prelate monopolised the recompense '? 
Let any one candidly read the passage, and say 
whether the reference of " thou" to the bishop, and 
"you" to the flock, does not suppose, within the 
compass of a verse, frequent, violent, and inexplicable 
transitions. But if they are quite natural, they must 
be of common occurrence. Produce, then, any modern 
document in which the bishop and the people of his 
diocese replace each other thus oft and suddenly, 
without intimation or ceremony, and we shall admit 
that our existing Episcopacy derives much counte- 
nance from the phraseology in question. If angel 
stand for a company, or for one as identified with 
others of the same order, there is no difficulty. The 
sense then is, " Fear none of those things which the 
eldership of this church shall suffer: behold, the 

* Rev. ii. 10. 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



235 



devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye 
may be tried ; and ye shall have tribulation ten 
days : but though in the case of any of you a capital 
punishment should be inflicted for fidelity, still be 
faithful unto death, and I will give the martyr a 
crown of life." 

5, If it were proved that angel means bishop, and the 
bishop alone, and that no mention whatever is made of 
his clergy, or any responsibility of office belonging to 
them, we should then have bishops, certainly, most po- 
tent bishops ; but they would be parochial bishops after 
all, and diocesan Episcopacy would still be in quest of 
its evidences. — The Asia of John was but a portion of 
Asia Minor, and the seven churches belonged to as 
many towns of differing magnitude. No angel had 
two towns under his charge. But the bishop of a 
diocese, says Onderdonk, is " one having power to 
govern many churches and clergymen."* The sup- 
position that each of the seven angels governed 
many churches, is in palpable contradiction to the 
record. I am not prepared to contend that each 
church was absolutely, and in every sense, a single 
congregation. I will endeavour to show elsewhere 
that this supposition is extreme. Several of the 
larger of the Asiatic societies had, I doubt not, sub- 
divided themselves, for the sake of convenience, into 
distinct worshipping associations. But we should 
pass to an opposite extreme in pronouncing every 
one of the seven churches to have been a group of 
churches ; and nobody will assert that the official 

* Episcopacy Tested by Scripture, p. 16. 



236 



ON THE SUBORDINATION OF 



status of the angel depended on this circumstance as its 
condition. If bishops at all, the angels were paro- 
chial bishops ; but that is to say that they were 
Presbyterian bishops ; for Dr Onderdonk defines 
such bishops as we acknowledge, and the New Testa- 
ment speaks of, " bishops of parishes," in distinction 
from "bishops of dioceses."* The angel of a single 
town and circumscribed neighbourhood could only 
be, at most, what he calls " the bishop of a parish, 
or a presbyter." Thus the angels turn out to be 
presbyters, and give their evidence for Presbytery, 
instead of testifying to Prelacy, which had cited 
them as witnesses. Even when Episcopacy had incon- 
trovertibly sprung up, and attained to considerable 
growth, it continued for ages to be parochial ; its 
principles, forms, language, were all parochial. Ig- 
natius, the favourite Father with Episcopalians, is 
equally emphatic as others in enunciating the maxim, 
One altar, one bishop — "*E'v Qvtfiatirieiov wg t/g zkig- 
tcowoc." Every altar, and therefore every church, had 
its bishop, f The recently published work of Hip- 
polytus shows, as Bunsen remarks, that even in his 
time — the early part of the third century — " a town 
was synonymous with a diocese." J 

Since much interest is felt in the work to which I 
have just alluded, and a high importance is attached 
to the information which it affords regarding the his- 
tory and constitution of the ancient church, I may be 

* Episcopacy Tested by Scripture, p. 16. 

t See Campbell on Kccles. Hist., vol. i. p. 211, &c. 

t Hippolytus and his Age, vol. i., sec. Postscript, p. 334 ] 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



237 



allowed to relieve the argument for a little, by giving 
the reader some account of this remarkable treatise, 
and of the circumstances under which it is brought 
before the Christian world. My summary of the 
facts will be collected and condensed from Bunsen's 
late publication, in four volumes, and expressed for 
the most part in that author's words. Hippolytus 
flourished in the reigns of Commodus and Alexander 
Severus ; and, as a Roman, he recollects and describes, 
from his personal knowledge, the secret history of the 
Church of Borne, under the former of these emperors. 
He is understood to have suffered martyrdom, a.d. 
236, in the first year of the reign of Maximin, or be- 
fore its close in 238. He was bishop of the Harbour 
of Bome — Portus, and also a presbyter of the Church 
of Bome ; or, in other words, a member of the Boman 
Presbytery. Photius, the learned patriarch of Con- 
stantinople, mentions regarding him that he was a 
disciple of Irenseus, of whose lectures against here- 
tics he made a synopsis, and thus composed a book on 
thirty-two heresies, beginning with the Dositheans 
[Ophites], and going downtoNoetusandtheNoetians. 
This book of Hippolytus was lost for many centuries, 
and has only now been recovered. 

" A French scholar and statesman of high merit, 
M. Yillemain, [then Minister of Public Instruction,] 
sent a Greek [Mynas] to Mount Athos mountain 
of Greece on which there are many monasteries], to 
look out for new treasures in the domain of Greek 
literature. The fruits of this mission were deposited, 
in 1842, in the great national library, already pos- 



238 



ON THE SUBORDINATION OF 



sessed of so many treasures. Among them was a 
manuscript of no great antiquity, written in the four- 
teenth century, not on parchment, but on cotton 
paper ; and it was registered as a book " on all Here- 
sies/' without any indication of its author or age. 
The modern date of the manuscript, its anonymous- 
ness, and probably, above all, this awful title, deterred 
the scrutinising eyes of the learned of ail nations who 
glanced over it. It fell to the lot of a distinguished 
Greek scholar and writer on literature, a functionary 
of that great institution [the national library], M. 
Emanuel Miller, to bring forward the hidden trea- 
sure. He was first struck by some precious fragments 
of Pindar, and of an unknown lyric poet, quoted 
by the anonymous writer ; he transcribed and com- 
municated them in 1826 to his literary friends in Ger- 
many, who, highly appreciating their value, restored 
the text, and urged him to publish the w 7 hole work. 
It appears that, during this time, M. Miller had 
looked deeper into the book himself ; for in 1850 he 
offered it to the University Press at Oxford, as a 
work of undoubted authenticity, and as a lost treatise 
of Origen against all heresies. The learned men pre- 
siding over that noble institution determined to print, 
and have just published it, thus giving the sanction 
of their authority, if not to the authorship, at least 

to the genuineness of the work The book 

was discovered' by a Greek sent from Paris, and has 
been most creditably edited by a French scholar, and 
very liberally printed by an English university press. 
The publication has been accomplished by a combi- 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



239 



nation of different nations, and could scarcely, at this 
time, have been brought about otherwise/' * 

The learned are agreed that the recovered work 
cannot have been written by Origen. Some are dis- 
posed to ascribe it to Caius; but Bunsen seems to have 
shown most decisively that Hippolytus was its author. 

Regarding this work I shall have more to say in 
succeeding chapters. For the present, I remark only, 
in connection with the topic more immediately in 
hand, that it unequivocally assigns a bishop to each 
city, and even to every small town, containing any 
number of Christians. The towns adjacent to Rome, 
instead of being included in the Roman See, had 
each its bishop. Portus, besides being the harbour 
of Rome, may be said to have formed a suburb of 
Ostia ; and yet each of these places was provided with 
a bishop. The word diocese {pioixr\(Sig) having rela- 
tion to a province, made its entry into ecclesiastical 
nomenclature &t a late period, when the power of 
bishops, ceasing to be parochial, and becoming pro- 
vincial, demanded an appropriate designation. f 

With the exception of one digression, the foregoing 
discussion has been condensed as much as possible ; 
but I trust enough has been said to convince a candid 
inquirer that apostles, evangelists, and apocalyptic 
angels were not official compeers, and that they cannot 
possibly be proved to have been one order correspond- 
ing w T ith diocesan bishops. 

* For this extract, see vol. i. letter i., p. 9, &c. 

t See Campbell on Eccles. History, vol. i., p. 207, &c. 



240 



ON THE SUBORDINATION OP 



CHAPTER VI. 

Sect. I.— Episcopacy invalidates that authority of Presbyters 
•which Scripture is careful to establish, more especially as 
regards government and ordination — The evidence on which 
Presbyters are denied these functions is almost wholly 
negative — This mode of proof is not conclusive, and it re- 
coils on Episcopalians. 

A third great objection to the episcopal system is, 
that it labours to reduce and enfeeble the 
power of Presbyters, which the writers of the 
New Testament are earnest to uphold. In a 
particular manner, it denies to presbyters the functions 
of government and ordination. The evidence adduced 
in support of this position by Episcopalians is almost 
wholly negative in its character. It is not pretended 
that presbyters are forbidden by Scripture, as they are 
by the decrees of episcopal councils, from discharging 
such duties. But it is virtually argued, that whatever 
presbyters cannot be shown, by specific examples to 
have done, they of course never did, and were inca- 
pable of doing. Have we any such annals of the con- 
duct of ordinary office-bearers in particular churches 
as to render this principle of argumentation safe ? 
Even " the Acts of the Apostles" give us only some 
acts of some apostles. Nay, disciplinary acts, on which 
so much stress is laid, are recorded of Paul only. And 
if so little is told us of the great champions of the cross, 
shall we measure the rights of presbyters by the few 
notices given us of their actual administration ? Surely 
if the general statements and pervading spirit of the 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



241 



New Testament be in favour of a stated and well- 
sustained rule by presbyters, the inference as to par- 
ticular functions of superintendence is all in their 
favour. What should we think of the argument, 
that, as Paul alone of all the apostles is recorded to 
have inflicted church censures, therefore the other 
apostles neither exercised nor possessed this function ? 
Such reasoning would be accounted sufficiently ab- 
surd ; and yet it is by this plea alone that presbyters 
are denuded of their authority. 

The demand for examples , may even recoil on 
those who make it. Bishop Onderdonk says, " There 
are no cases recorded of discipline by presbyters." 
And shall we conclude, then, that presbyters had no 
power of rule, and exercised no authority whatever 
for the maintenance of ecclesiastical purity ? No ; 
this would be too much for Episcopacy. " Doubt- 
less," says Bishop Onderdonk, "their elders did 
[judge] in lighter matters, even to the lesser ex- 
communication." But if no cases of discipline by 
elders are recorded, and yet they confessedly did 
charge themselves with cases of discipline, this shows 
that we should reason inconclusively by inferring 
the absence of the power from the silence of Scrip- 
ture as to its application. Scripture, we are told, 
has recorded no cases of discipline by elders ', yet they 
did exercise discipline in lesser matters; why, then, 
though Scripture (by supposition) has recorded no 
such cases, may they not have exercised discipline 
in greater matters ? The total silence of Scripture 
must prove total incapacity in one ease as well as 

Q 



242 



ON THE SUBORDINATION OF 



another, otherwise the argument is vicious. It will 
not do to establish a universal conclusion, and then 
take so much of it as suits our purpose. If the fact 
be that no cases of discipline by elders are recorded, 
and yet in some cases elders did exercise discipline, 
then should not Bishop Onderdonk see that he insists 
upon more record than suits his own concessions ; 
and that he has got into a province where a full and 
complete history has not been afforded us ? 



CHAPTER VI. 

Sect. II.— There is evidence that Elders were entrusted with 
government — The power is expressly ascribed to them — 
The ascription of it is not accompanied with reservations 
in behalf of Prelates — The administration of discipline in 
certain recorded cases was not prelatic— There is sufficient 
ground to conclude that Elders, besides ruling the flock, 
exercised inspection over one another. 

The remarks in the preceding section were made to 
expose a fallacy in Episcopal reasoning, and not to 
get rid of an appeal which presbytery is unable to 
meet. Whether there be a fair and full view of 
the power of presbyters in the statement, that no 
cases of discipline by them are recorded, let the 
reader decide after pondering the following con- 
siderations : — 

1. Scripture ascribes the power of government very 
unequivocally to elders. It denotes their administra- 
tion by the verbs qyeoftui, e xgoUrri^ -oi/j,a/vw; and 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



243 



we do not find in the New Testament any stronger 
expressions for ecclesiastical rule. " Remember 
them which have the rule over you {ruv ^yov/^svojv 
vfAwv), who have spoken unto you the word of God." * 
" Obey them that have the rule over you (roTg 
qyov/uevotg tyt&Jv), and submit yourselves ; for they 
watch for your souls," &c. f " Salute all them that 
have the rule over you" (iravrag rovg jjyovfi'evovg 
v/jLojv). J Here in the course of one chapter we have 
the verb riyzopai used three times in relation to 
numerous stated office-bearers, never to be con- 
founded with diocesan bishops. " We beseech you, 
brethren, to know them which labour among you, 
and are over you (v^oitirafihovg v/aouv) in the Lord."§ 
" Let the elders that rule well (tfgostfroorzg ffgecrfivrtgoi) 
be counted worthy," &c. || Surely the church in 
Thessalonica had not a plurality of diocesans labour- 
ing among them. In the passage cited from 1 
Tim. the rulers are expressly called elders. " Take 
heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock over the 
which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers 
(bishops) to feed (noipamiv) the church of God." % 
Paul thus spoke to the Ephesian " elders." In after 
times the bishop alone was yjyov/jAvog and rtgo/tfrcc/usvog; 
but the inspired penmen apply these titles to all 
presbyters without distinction ; and is it not a sig- 
nificant fact, that the ambitious and grasping prelacy 
of subsequent times monopolised the scriptural terms 
for ordinary presbyterial control as the mosf emphatic 

* Heb. xiii. 7. f lb. 17. % lb. 24. 

I 1 Thess. v. 12. || 1 Tim. v. 17. \ Acts xx. 28. 



244 



ON THE SUBORDINATION OF 



it could get even then for characterising its usurped 
and lordly dominion ? 

2. Scripture does not qualify such ascription of 
power to elders by any reservations expressive of sub- 
ordination to higher officers. The elders of Ephesus 
convened at Miletus were instructed after what 
manner to exercise their episcopate; but though 
informed how to feed the flock, they were not bound 
over to obey a diocesan. The orders they received 
had all respect to superintendence of the flock or 
mutual fidelity, and said nothing of subjection to 
ministers of a loftier grade. To say that the Ephe- 
sian elders were still to obey Paul, though removed 
from them, as being a bishop at large, is inadmis- 
sible, since his very design was to speak of duties 
which would demand fulfilment when communication 
with himself should be broken off ; and the pathos 
of the address obviously and confessedly lies in its 
valedictory character. 

The emblems by which the power of presbyters 
is illustrated in Scripture suppose its elevated cha- 
racter. It is likened, for example, to that of heads 
of families. A bishop, says Paul, must be "one 
that ruleth well his own house, having his children 
in subjection with all gravity; for if a man know 
not how to rule his own house, how shall he take 
care of the church of G od ? " * The highest power 
in a family resides in its head, It is by a supreme 
discipline that he keeps his children in grave sub- 
jection. But this rule over one's own house the 
* 1 Tim. iii. 4, 5. 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



245 



apostle employs to illustrate the care which pres- 
byter-bishops have of the church ; and a proved 
competency for the former he specifies as a condition 
of appointment to the latter. 

3. Scripture exhibits to us important cases of dis- 
cipline not administered by prelates. Paul says, " Do 
not ye judge them that are within ? " * " So 
doubtless," says Bishop Onderdonk, " their elders 
did in lighter matters, even to the lesser excommu- 
nication." Whether the judgment Paul speaks of 
had respect to lighter matters, may be seen from the 
context : " I have written unto you not to keep com- 
pany, if any man that is called a brother be a forni- 
cator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a 
drunkard, or an extortioner ; with such an one no 
not to eat/' This is the eleventh verse, and the 
apostle asks in the twelfth, " Do not ye judge them 
that are within V A clause, indeed, is interposed 
in the beginning of the latter verse : " For what have 
I to do to judge them also that are without ?" This 
intimates simply that the judgment spoken of was 
not for parties without the church. If any that was 
called a brother, as being a church member, was a 
fornicator, &c, then the case came under ecclesiastical 
cognisance, and it belonged to the parties addressed to 
judge such offenders as those within its communion. In 
the next verse the apostle insists on the ejection of 
the fornicator who had his father's wife. The 
context, therefore — in what precedes and what 
follows — plainly shows, that when the apostle says, 
* 1 Cor. v. 12. 



246 



ON THE SUBORDINATION OF 



" Do not ye judge them that are within?" his 
language comprises matters of judgment of the 
gravest description. 

But " the action of Paul," says Dr Onderdonk, 
" in this case, shows that they (the Corinthians) did 
not inflict the greater excommunication."* How can 
it show so much ? This conclusion is broader than 
the premises. The action of Paul proved only that 
where discipline was neglected he could interfere and 
cause it to be enforced. " Wherefore put away from 
among yourselves," he says, " that wicked person/' 
Has a sea-captain no command of a ship — has he 
not, in ordinary circumstances, the supreme command 
of his ship — because an admiral may interpose at a 
time a superior authority to punish misconduct or 
reward merit among the crew? The language of 
Paul, as has been justly observed by Mr Barnes, 
supposes that the church of Corinth did usually 
exercise discipline ; nay, that it ought to have done 
so in this case. How was the society implicated in 
the crime of an individual unless by their neglect of 
discipline ? Their offence plainly was, that the 
offender had not with mourning been " taken away 
from among" them. 

Dr Onderdonk weakly replies by citing acknow- 
ledgments about the imperfect qualifications of the 
first elders. Such imperfection might render proper 
an occasional supervision of their authority, without 
destroying it altogether, or superseding it in ordinary 
circumstances. 

* Episcopacy Tested by Scripture, p. 15. 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



247 



It is quite conceivable that churches (whether 
acting collectively or through elders) might be usually 
charged with discipline, and yet in the infant state 
of the Christian cause, and when their own conversion 
was recent, might need the interposition at times of 
a superior direction. Certainly no stray discussion 
about the capacity or incapacity of any parties can 
set aside the explicit language of Paul in the chapters 
under consideration. He unequivocally complains 
to those whom he addresses, that the perpetrator of 
the foul deed had not been excommunicated. To 
prevent similar neglect in future, he says, verse 7, 
"Purge out, therefore, the old leaven/' &c. The " old 
leaven " was to be purged out by them, though at his 
instigation ; and that the " old leaven" does not refer 
to this one crime alone, but in general to such crimi- 
nalities, is plain from verse 8 : " Therefore let us keep 
the feast not with old leaven, neither with the leaven 
of malice and wickedness [most comprehensive terms], 
but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth/' 
In his second epistle to the Corinthians, Paul reverts 
to this case of offence, which, in consequence of his 
prior expostulation, had been visited with adequate 
if not extreme correction : — " Sufficient to such a 
man," he says, " is this punishment, which was 
inflicted of many. So that contrariwise ye ought 
rather to forgive him/' &c. # Shortly after, and in 
the same connection, he says, " To whom ye forgive 
anything, I forgive also." Not only does the apostle 
in this language leave it .with the Corinthians them- 
* 2 Cor. ii. 



248 



ON THE SUBORDINATION OF 



selves to forgive the offender or discharge him from 
corrective discipline ; but he generalises his language 
— " To whom ye forgive anything, I forgive also." 
So often as you see meet thus to release offenders 
from disciplinary punishment, you have my approval 
and concurrence. 

On a review of this proof, it appears that churches 
uncontrolled by prelates judged those that were 
within. Even where Paul interfered to correct 
irregularities, he intimates how like matters ought to 
be proceeded with in the absence of such express 
and direct interference. His language cannot be 
understood of a personal bearing towards offenders ; 
for it is not the phraseology of private intercourse, 
and it occurs, besides, in the midst of statements 
and instructions about ecclesiastical discipline. Nor 
is there room for pretending that the judgment so 
exercised had respect to light matters ; for it is spoken 
of in immediate connection with heinous and aggra- 
vated trespasses. Paul exerted his apostolic authority 
in requiring that a certain offender should be brought 
under discipline. Even then, however, he did not 
inflict the corrective punishment, but left the inflic- 
tion of it to others. His language implies, that they 
should have set about it sooner, and that his remonstrance 
and interference were occasioned by their culfahle 
remissness. When they had subjected the offender 
to adequate censure, and passing perhaps from one 
extreme to another, had become over zealously severe, 
Paul recommends a relaxation of rigour and an 
extension of mercy. And to prevent in future the 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



249 



undue severity or prolongation of such discipline, 
he gives them the general assurance that so often as 
punishment led to penitence, they had his cordial 
concurrence in the exercise of clemency. Let any 
one read with candour the epistles to the Corinthians, 
and say whether such be not their import and spirit 
in relation to the subject in debate ; and whether, in 
consequence, they do not utterly explode the alleged 
dependence of discipline on prelacy. 

In the preceding remarks I have allowed it to be 
supposed that church discipline might be administered 
either by the members collectively, or by selected 
functionaries, because the settlement of that point 
belongs to another part of the argument ; and in 
reasoning with the advocates of Episcopacy, it is 
enough for me to show that offenders can be dealt 
with, and even the gravest discipline administered, 
without the aid of a diocesan bishop. 

One void may seem to remain. Though elders 
ruled the flock, where is the proof that they ruled 
each other? Where do we hear in Scripture of 
presbyters having brother presbyters under their 
jurisdiction ? We have shown that government and 
discipline in general are assigned to elders ; and if 
we have made good the rule, it lies with those who 
deem it to be limited to establish their exceptions. 
Elders have authority — a general authority — em- 
phatically and unrestrictedly ascribed to them : where 
is the proof that such authority does not include a 
mutual inspection ? Above all, where is the command 
to a presbyter to obey his diocesan ? Any indications 



250 



ON THE SUBORDINATION OF 



which Scripture furnishes on the subject look in 
another direction. In addressing the Ephesian elders, 
Paul said, " Take heed therefore unto yourselves, 
and to all the flock." The elders were to look to 
their own order, while maintaining church order. 
What follows is yet more explicit : " For I know 
this, that after my departure shall grievous wolves 
enter in among you, not sparing the flock ; also of 
your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse 
things to draw away disciples after them, therefore 
watch." No doubt each elder was here instructed 
to be on his guard, lest the awful prediction of evil 
should be fulfilled in himself. But when Paul speaks 
of calamities to the flock, and enjoins watching in 
relation to wolves, who can imagine all the duty 
enforced to be exhausted when an elder was simply 
careful not to be a wolf? Was he to see wolves 
come, and to stand by while these depredators com- 
mitted their ravages unrestrained ? Paul forewarns 
elders of these destroyers, and speaks of no higher, 
no other functionaries than elders by whom the de- 
struction may be precluded or qualified. A degenerate 
ministry is the evil : the watchfulness of elders is the 
remedy, and the only remedy, specified by the apostle. 

The reader may naturally be desirous to know 
what light the newly-discovered work of Hippolytus 
sheds on the powers of presbyters, and their partici- 
pation in discipline during the earlier centuries of the 
Christian era. We learn from it that there was a 
Roman Presbytery, of which Hippolytus and other 
suburban bishops were members. To suppose that 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



251 



the teachers of such inconsiderable places were all 
diocesan bishops, would require surely an effort of 
imagination. The governing presbytery, however, 
included many members resident in Rome. There 
could not be numerous diocesans in the same city. 
Nor is Hippolytus the only writer who, in relation to 
that period, bears witness to these facts. " We have," 
says Bunsen, " in Cornelius' Letter about Novatian, 
the official list of the clergy of the city of Eome."* 
This letter being of the year 250, the presbytery can 
scarcely have differed in its principal features from 
that of which Hippolytus was a member some twenty 
years earlier. "There were under Cornelius, at Rome, 
forty-two priests (or presbyters) and seven deacons. 
. . . These persons, therefore, formed the pres- 
bytery. According to the 35th Apostolical Canon, 
the bishops of the suburban towns, including Portus, 
also formed at that time an integral part of the Roman 
Presbytery, called in later times the College of Car- 
dinals." f On such grounds Bunsen concludes that 
"the Ecclesiastical Polity" of these times "maybe 
termed Presbyterianism." J But what sort of govern- 
ing functions did the Presbytery fulfil ? Bunsen says, 
" All weighty affairs evidently passed still through 
the Presbytery ; only the decree of the Presbytery of 
the Roman Church could expel from its communion." 
A writer in a recent number of the Edinburgh 
Review says, " Hippolytus speaks of himself being 

* Euseb. H. E., vi. 43. 

t Hipp, and his Age, vol. i., let. v., pp. 310, 311. 
t lb., p. 307 



252 



ON THE SUBORDINATION OF 



officially concerned in expelling some persons from 
the Eoman Church. In the treatise against the 
heresy of Noetus, he (Hippolytus) states that the 
Presbytery summoned Noetus before their church, 
and questioned him as to his tenets, and ultimately 
expelled him from the church. 99 This was not surely 
a power of discipline "in lesser matters," or in relation 
to private members.* 

* As regards the points of difference between Presbyterians 
and Congregationalists which have been already discussed, I 
do not find that Bunsen adduces any thing very decisive from 
Hippolytus, or that the expression of his own opinions is very 
clear and consistent. He says, " The elders are teachers and 
administrators. If an individual happen to be engaged in either 
of these offices more exclusively than the other, it makes no 
real alteration in his position ; for the presbyters of the ancient 
church filled both situations.'" This language seems to inti- 
mate that all elders were from the first both teachers and rulers, 
although some might exclusively occupy themselves with one 
of these departments. (Vol. iii., p. 246.) Elsewhere he de- 
clares that " in the earliest church the office of teacher was 
open to all. Every one taught to whom the Spirit gave the 
vocation. By degrees the office of the elders became an office 
of teachers." — (Page 185.) Here we are informed that in the 
first instance none were officially teachers. Elders, in their 
official capacity, exclusively ruled ; they were, in other words, 
ruling elders. By degrees official teachers found admission 
among these elders ; at which stage of (supposed) transition 
teaching elders and ruling elders would form together one 
council or session. 

It seems to me that some ordinances of the ancient church, 
which Mr Bunsen supplies in his third volume, point to an 
order of elders expressly appointed for superintendence. In 
the first set of ordinances of the church of Alexandria respect- 
ing the clergy we have instructions " how a bishop is to be 
elected, and what is required of him.'" Thereafter it is pro- 
vided, " that the bishop is to ordain two or rather three pres- 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



253 



CHAPTER VI. 

Sect. III.— On Ordination as a service claimed by Prelates — 
The nature of the rite does not show that it is unsuitable 
for Presbyters— The refusal of this power to Presbyters is 
inconsistent with the argument for three orders founded 
by Episcopalians on the Constitution of the Old Testament 
Church— No arguments against Presbyterate Ordination 
can be derived from Ordination by Apostles and Evange- 
lists—Presbyters are not interdicted by Scripture from 
Ordaining — The state of the Pastorate in Apostolic times 
indicates that the Apostles were not the only ordainers— 
An instance of ordination by Presbyters is recorded in the 
New Testament — The right of Elders to ordain is confirmed 
by history — Result of the argument. 

The prelatic system denies to presbyters the right of 
ordaining. Episcopalians attach great importance to 
this position, and lay much stress on the proof which 

byters."— (Page 35, &c.) If only a dozen persons in a place 
were able to contribute to the support of a bishop, his election 
was to be proceeded with ; and while the congregation had 
" still to be formed," as Bunsen remarks, page 220, " the bishop 
named the elders." Could preaching elders, additional to the 
bishop, be needed under such circumstances ? These ordi- 
nances expressly require that the bishop be "able to explain 
the Scriptures well :" the elders are not said to instruct the 
people except to be " all in subjection ; M in other words, they 
were to preserve order. 

In respect to the rights of church members, Bunsen tells us, 
that in the days of Hippolytus the only vestige of popular 
liberty that was left lay in a tumultuous veto on the appoint- 
ment of bishops. And what of the power of the people in earlier 
times ? Mr Bunsen says, the " congregation was governed and 
directed by a council of elders, which congregational council 
at a later period was presided over, in most churches, by a go- 
verning overseer— the bishop. But the ultimate decision in 
important emergencies rested with the whole congregation : 



254 



ON THE SUBORDINATION OF 



they adduce on its behalf. Perhaps the reader will 
not consider it so very strong if he duly weigh the 
following observations. 

i. The reasonableness of refusing to presbyters the 
power of ordaining does not appear from the nature of 
ordination. In being ordained, a person is regularly 
set apart to official duty. They who ordain him, 
thereby affix the seal of their approbation in the most 
solemn manner to the appointment, while they invoke 
for him the aid of that Spirit who divideth to every 
man severally as he will. If the individual who is the 
subject of ordination has the countenance of brethren 
already established in office and character, and through 
their prayers is strengthened with all strength by the 
Spirit in the inner man, he will not be deficient in 
sanction or encouragement. The service may have 

bishops and elders were its superintending members — its guides, 
but not its masters."— (Page 220.) And who was to decide 
what emergencies were important, so as to bring these cases, 
and these only, before the whole congregation ? or by what 
decision regarding these emergencies was the ultimate deci- 
sion preceded ? Surely " the whole congregation " was not 
a court of review, which sat in judgment on appeals from the 
inferior council of elders. This is not meant ; but I do not 
see what meaning precisely is to be conveyed. Mr Bunsen tells 
us elsewhere, that Clement of Rome wrote his epistle to the 
Corinthians about twenty years before the gospel of John was 
written, exhorting them to respect the well-founded right of 
venerable elders ; and that the " Philippians appear to have lived 
under the same aristocratic constitution when Polycarp addressed 
his epistle to them.' ' He asserts with axiomatic explicitness, 
that "bishops and elders are essentially rulers," and that 
"rulers must have power."— (Page 245.) I have already en- 
deavoured to show what confusion results from such represen- 
tations, giving presidency now to the people, and now to the 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



255 



been accompanied in primitive times with the impar- 
tation of preternatural endowments, qualifying the 
person for the trust committed to him. On such 
occasions hands were imposed ; and we know that the 
imposition of hands was significant in many instances 
of the communication of the Holy Ghost. His gifts 
were certainly most needed by office-bearers in the 
church who sustained a principal charge and respon- 
sibility; and there is nothing improbable in the sup- 
position that these gifts may have been conferred in 
special abundance when new obligations were in the 
act of being undertaken. Of this miraculous nature, 
probably, was the gift that was in Timothy, " which 
was given him by prophecy, with the laying on of the 
hands of the presbytery." * Taking this view of the 

pastor ; how little countenanced they are by Scripture ; and 
how fatal the attempt to carry them into effect proves to the 
liberties of Christian societies. If, through any misapprehen- 
sion, I am doing Mr Bunsen injustice, I shall be glad to be 
shown my error. It is evidently his desire to state facts un- 
disguisedly, and to prefer divine truth to all human systems 
and human favour. I regret that he has introduced into his 
four elaborate volumes speculations on different points about 
which Hippolytus confessedly says nothing, and about which, 
as the Edinburgh Reviewer observes, information has been de- 
rived " from other sources." This is a plan no doubt which the 
author was entitled to adopt ; but a distinct, candid, and com- 
pendious view of the additional knowledge furnished to church 
history by the recently discovered work of Hippolytus remains 
in consequence a desideratum. That a Roman Presbytery ex- 
isted in the time of Hippolytus, and that the presbyters exer- 
cised discipline in matters great as well as small, are facts 
unequivocally attested in the work " Against all Heresies." 
* 1 Tim. iv. 14. 



256 



ON THE SUBORDINATION OF 



subject, some have hence questioned whether the 
imposition of hands in ordination, as practised by the 
apostles and their fellow-labourers, had not exclusive 
reference to extraordinary endowments, and ought 
not to be dispensed with when these endowments have 
ceased. The Church of Scotland, under the guidance 
of its Eeformer, John Knox, discarded for a time 
this symbolic act. " Albeit/' says the First Book of 
Discipline, " the apostles used the imposition of hands, 
yet seeing the miracle is ceased, the using the cere- 
mony we judge not to be necessary/' We stiLl need, 
however, the aids of the Spirit ; they are specially 
needful to ministers of the Word ; and the imposition 
of hands may fitly indicate our dependence on His 
help, and express our desire and prayer that it may 
be vouchsafed to us. There is no evidence that the 
imposition of hands denoted spiritual influence of only 
one kind — only the miraculous, to the exclusion of 
the sanctifying, agency of the Holy Grhost — and why 
then should not the rite be retained as symbolic of 
divine succours, which are still afforded us ? 

I have said that, in being ordained, a person is 
set apart to official duty. The more essential idea 
may seem to be, that he is set apart to office; and I 
do not object to this mode of expression. Only we 
find in the early and inspired history of the Chris- 
tian church that persons already in office, without 
being preferred to any other office, were sometimes 
set apart with all the form and solemnity of an ordi- 
nation to some particular appointment. The Holy 
Ghost said, " Separate me Barnabas and Saul for 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



257 



the work whereunto I have called them. And when 
they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands 
on them, they sent them away." * As regards 
presbyters, it is of importance to remark, that they 
were ordained not to office in the abstract, or to be 
performed anywhere, but to official oversight in a 
particular church. Nor was ordination restricted to 
spiritual office-bearers, ordinary and extraordinary ; 
we find that deacons charged with the serving of 
tables were also ordained. In all cases the service 
was conducted by ecclesiastical rulers, who also 
pointed out the qualifications indispensable to the 
office which was to be filled. But the people were 
not therefore slighted or superseded. They had 
the right of choosing their office-bearers, f The 
multitude, after suitable instructions regarding the 
sort of candidates to be sought out, elected seven 
deacons, and set them before the twelve, who, when 
they had prayed, laid their hands on them. 
* Acts xiii. 2, 3. 

f It is curious to observe how much importance is attached 
by Episcopalians to the imposition of hands in the ordination 
of office-bearers, and how little to the elevation of hands in 
their election. "The charm of the succession," says one of 
the most esteemed writers of our day. " must be ascribed to a 
mysterious virtue derived from the hands of the apostles ; but 
the apostles did not lay on hands arbitrarily— the Cheirothesia 
(to use a Greek term familiar with the readers of the Greek 
New Testament, and of Harrington) required to be preceded by 
the Cheirotonia : none were ordained who were not popularly 
elected. Where there is no foundation, there is no super- 
structure ; where the beginning is wanting, the consummation 
is wanting also."— (Popery and Infidelity, by J. Douglas of 
Cavers, p. 12.) 

R 



258 



ON THE SUBORDINATION OF 



These observations have been made with little 
reference to controversy, in order to collect the 
more obvious intimations of Scripture on this sub- 
ject. From what has been adduced, it appears that, 
in ordination of a scriptural character, the rulers 
of the church set apart to official trust a person 
duly called by the Christian people, under guidance 
as to the necessary qualifications. This ordinary 
form of procedure does not provide for the extra- 
ordinary case of a number of private Christians 
being wholly without Christian rulers, and reduced 
by their local situation to the necessity, in order 
that they may have teachers, of appointing indivi- 
duals apt to teach from among themselves to take 
the pastoral care of them. Under such circum- 
stances, Presbyterians do not, as Bishop Onderdonk 
says they do, " insist on ordination by succession 
from the apostles," or imagine " if this succession is 
broken/' that " ordination becomes of mere human 
authority/' * Such was not the doctrine of the 
Eeformers. Saints are themselves a royal priest- 
hood; and strange would it be if they depended 
absolutely for a ministry on a thing of circumstances 
— on successive manipulations, either by prelates or 
presbyters. Christ's final commission was in the 
words, " Go ye and teach (make disciples of) all 
nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, 
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." These 
words were spoken in the hearing, not of the twelve 
only, but of assembled hundreds of disciples re- 

* Episcopacy Tested by Scripture, p. 52, Note GT. 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



259 



presenting the Christian church. " It was," says 
Dr Smyth, " ' unto this catholic visible church Christ 
gave the ministry.' ' The whole church visible/ 
says Hooker, 6 was the true original subject of all 
power.' 6 God,' says Bucer, 4 gave the power of 
ordination to the church (simpliciter), and not to 
individuals, and. the presbytery are but the servants 
of the church.' ' We lay it down,' to use the words 
of Dr Bice, ' as a fundamental principle in our 
system of polity, that ecclesiastical power is by the 
Lord Jesus Christ vested in the church; it belongs 
to the body of the faithful people.' And hence it 
follows, that, should any interruption or removal 
of the true and lawful ministry take place, God's 
church and people are in such a case thrown back 
upon their original rights — are empowered, by autho- 
rity of this commission, to call any individuals whom 
Christ has gifted to officiate in the church, until in 
this way a gospel ministry is again instituted, and 
the church permanently officered and organised. 
In such a case as this, the church has power to 
set up the ministry and to restore it, according to 
Christ's own institution ; and the inward call of 
God enlarging, stirring up, and assisting the heart, 
together with the good-will and assent of a people 
whom God makes willing to receive him, can fully 
authorise and consecrate any man to the ministerial 
office." * Extraordinary events may indicate the will 
of God even more clearly than usual forms. But 
ordinary forms are for ordinary circumstances most 
* Smyth on Presbytery, pp. 60, 61. 



260 



ON THE SUBORDINATION OF 



valuable, and they should never be neglected when 
they can be observed. Therefore, in churches 
having rulers, these rulers should formally ordain, 
or solemnly set apart, to the ministry those qualified 
individuals whom the church calls to the office. 

If there be more in ordination, what is it ? The 
most vague notions about its efficacy have been 
widely entertained. It has been regarded as im- 
printing a character thereafter ineffaceable, save by 
the hand of Omnipotence. The Council of Trent 
was much occupied in determining wherein this 
character consists, and whereon it is imprinted. Dr 
Campbell, who gives an amusing summary of the 
points in debate, says, " The whole of what they 
agreed on amounts to this, that something — they 
know not what — is imprinted — they know not how 
— on something in the bjul of the recipient— they 
know not where — which can never be deleted/' * 
Few Protestants will care to enter into such dis- 
quisitions. But many who speak loudly against 
Eome share its mysterious ideas about ordination. 
They regard it as fixing on the ordained a hallowed 
signature, at once imperceptible, incomprehensible, 
and ineffaceable. In this mood they are quite pre- 
pared to make prelates the ordainers ; for they 
readily believe that high functionaries must be 
needed to produce in a man this remarkable me- 
tamorphosis, by which he is for ever discriminated 
from ordinary men, and imbued with a certain 
sacred inscrutable officiality. Bishop Onderdonk, 

* On Church Hist., vol. i., p. 365. 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



261 



with all his enlightenment, talks obscurely enough 
on this subject. He states that " what is given in 
ordination is given unreservedly, and it is never, 
except for discipline, retracted, or suspended, or 
modified by the giver or givers," &c. We desire 
the opening pronoun of this enunciation to be ex- 
plained — to be replaced by its noun or nouns. 
Unveil to us the " what " of ordination, and then 
we shall see, peradventure, how it is given, and 
may discern its compatibility or incompatibility with 
reservation, retraction, suspension, or modification, 
by giver or givers. 

To those who consider ordination a sacred inscru- 
table something, standing absolutely by itself, and 
insusceptible of being denoted save by its one awful 
name, I recommend a careful perusal of the following- 
passage from Dr Davidson : — 

6 6 The word ordain, as employed to denote desig- 
nation or setting apart to the duties of an office con- 
nected with the Christian religion, is represented by 
six different terms in the original Greek. 

" 6 Jesus ordained twelve to be with him,' Inor^i 
dudsza. — Mark iii. 14. 

" < Must one be ordained to be a witness,' ysv'stOai. 
—Acts i. 22. 

" 6 And when they had ordained them elders in 
every church,' yjioorovritfavrzg. — Acts xiv. 23. 

" « By that man whom he hath ordained, 9 ugite. 
— Acts xvii. 31 . 

" 6 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher,' hUr t v. 
_1 Tim. ii. 7. 



262 



ON THE SUBORDINATION OF 



" ' That thou shouldest ordain elders in every city/ 
xarcttfrTjtiYig. — Titus i. 5. 

" This induction affords an intimation that ordi- 
nation, in the scriptural sense of the term, differs 
from ordination in the current use of it. At the 
present day, it denotes something talismanic and 
mysterious — a certain undefinable process which 
metamorphoses a layman into a clergyman. A won- 
drous virtue or efficacy is assumed to lie in the act 
which it is employed to express. But had this been 
the New Testament usage, we should have expected 
that one word only in the Greek would have been 
uniformly adopted. A thing of so much importance 
and efficacy must have had its own appropriate repre- 
sentative. Six different verbs could scarcely have 
been found to symbolise a single transaction of unique 
character." * 

If in ordination a person is simply set apart, in 
an orderly manner, to official trust, then no reason 
appears, in the nature of the case, why presbyters 
should not ordain presbyters. A prelate is exalted, 
no doubt, in being made the exclusive depositary of 
this power. But it is not the spirit of the Bible to 
make distinctions in themselves arbitrary, and having 
no practical use, except to depress one class of office- 
bearers, and elevate the pride of an ecclesiastical 
superior. 

2. The refusal to presbyters of the right to ordain 
is incongruous with the appeal often made in behalf of 
prelacy to the constitution of the Old Testament church, 

* Eccl. Pol., pp. 219, 220. 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



263 



Episcopalians have laid great stress on the analogy 
subsisting between their ministry, in three orders, 
and the Mosaic ministry, consisting of High Priest, 
Priests, and Levites. It has been often and zealously 
contended, that the former ministry typically fore- 
shadowed the latter. This argument has been shown 
to be so feeble in its grounds, and so calamitous in 
its consequences, that it is getting out of favour 
apparently with its friends. The priests were 
typical of Christ. " He," says Bishop Skinner, 
" was the real, permanent object shadowed out by all 
these figurative, temporary representations of the 
Mosaic ritual ; and the whole order of the sacrifices 
— the whole disposition of the tabernacle — the 
wdiole ministry of the priesthood, pointed to Him 
as the one true, propitiatory sacrifice — the true 
tabernacle — the eternal high priest, who is passed 
into the heavens, there to make continual inter- 
cession."* If we say that the priests were also 
types of the Christian ministry, then Christian 
ministers are priests, and in their priestly character 
must have somewhat sacrificial to offer. Kay, being 
anti-types — the substance foreshadowed — they be- 
hove to offer true sacrifices, and to ground on them 
true and effective mediation ; and all this to the 
exclusion or disparagement of the Lamb of Grod, and 
the one mediator between God and man, the man 
Christ Jesus. In the New Testament, sacerdotal 
terms, such as priest, priesthood, sacrifice, are never 
applied to Christian ministers and their functions. 

* Primitive Truth and Order, c. i. p. 53. 



264 



OX THE SUBORDINATION OF 



When we think how familiar the writers were with 
such phraseology, and how prone they must have 
been to use it, if its use had been still allowable, 
we are led, with Archbishop Whately and others, 
irresistibly to conclude that they designedly withheld 
it, as absolutely inapplicable to the functions and the 
institutions of the evangelical dispensation.* 

We cannot admit, then, that the Aaronic priest- 
hood prefigured Christian pastors as a priesthood. 
But we do admit that the ancient priesthood consti- 
tuted a regular and duly-appointed ministry. What- 
ever was essential to the status of a clergyman was 
surely to be met with in that economy of exact and 
ample ceremonial. Was it needful, then, to the 
ministry of the second order under the law that they 
should be ordained or invested with office by the 
high priest, constituting in himself the highest order ? 
Xo ; ministers of the second degree did all that was 
necessary to the induction of equals into office. As 
regards the high priest, he could not, in the nature 
of the case, be ordained by a compeer ; for while the 
Mosaic ordinances were observed, there could not be 
two such office-bearers contemporaries. Till the 
Sanhedrim latterly invested the ecclesiastical head of 
the nation with his high-priestly robes, the priests 
did all that was required for the regular installation 

* "I cannot well conceive any proof more complete than is 
here afforded, that Christ and his apostles intended dis- 
tinctly to exclude and forbid, as inconsistent with his religion, 
those things (sacrifices, altars, priesthood, &c) which I have 
been speaking of." — {Kingdom of Christ, Essay ii., s. xiv., 
p. 135.) 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



265 



of the high priest, their superior. How comes it, 
then, that service of the nature of ordination can no 
longer be conducted by the second order, to use the 
language and speak on the principles of Episcopalians? 
and whence is it that a spiritual dispensation is here 
more jealous about grades first, second, and third, 
than was the ritual dispensation itself? 

3. That apostles and evangelists sometimes ordained, 
is no proof that elders never did, and might not, ordain. 
The churches when newly formed had no elders, nor 
for some time afterwards. Gifts supplied the place 
of offices, and private members , exercised freely the 
privilege of exhorting one another and comforting 
one another. With the apostles it was an express 
rule not to appoint a novice, or recent convert, to the 
eldership. Ordination by apostles might, therefore, 
indicate, not the incapacity of elders for this service, 
but simply the ivant of them. Even if churches had 
elders, there might be sufficient reason why apostles, 
if present, should, in the exercise of higher superin- 
tendence, ordain just as they preached, in lieu of the 
teaching eldership, or should take a prominent lead in 
fulfilling this duty. 

4. Presbyters are noivhere in the New Testament 
interdicted from ordaining. Such prohibitions have 
been plentiful in ecclesiastical decrees of more recent 
date. One of them, found in the apostolic writings, 
would have been very appropriate and very precious 
for the vindication of prelacy. Presbyters are 
instructed to rule, and churches to obey them, but 
neither presbyters nor churches are here pointed to 



266 



OF THE SUBORDINATION OF 



an important reservation in the instructions, or warned 
by precept or proposition that a diocesan bishop is 
the sole ordainer in the Christian economy. 

5. The accounts given us of the state of the pastorate, 
in a proportion of the primitive churches, appears in- 
compatible with the doctrine that apostles alone ordained 
to the pastoral office. In the age of the apostles 
many false teachers and wicked men found their way 
into the ministry. We cannot easily explain why 
such persons in such numbers were able to enter the 
ministerial office, if the door of entrance had been 
kept exclusively by apostles. The churehes*were 
blamed for heaping up to themselves unsuitable 
teachers ; but how was the impropriety possible, and 
why was not caution duly enforced in the right 
quarter, if apostles only might ordain ? Why blame 
the churches only, and not the ordainers also ? 
The matter of reproach, let it be also observed, 
was simply that such teachers were sought and 
relished, and not that apostles were superseded 
in the mode of their appointment — not that they 
had entered otherwise than under the hand of a 
diocesan. Paul said to the elders of Ephesus, " I 
know this, that after my departing shall grievous 
wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock."* 
But how could these wolves get in if only Paul or 
some brother apostle might admit them ? The infer- 
ence from such considerations is, that the agency 
engaged in ordinations was not always apostolic, and 
that where churches and their stated pastorate were 

* Acts xx. 29. 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



267 



in a wrong state, the usual mode of appointment to 
office rendered possible and easy the introduction of 
very objectionable office-bearers. 

6. Though little is recorded in the New Testament 
of the actual administration of presbyters, mention is 
made of presbyterial ordination. Paul says, "Neglect 
not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by 
prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the 
presbytery," * The gift that was in Timothy, as has 
been already remarked, probably included w T ith office 
preternatural qualifications for its duties. It had 
been prophesied of him that he w r ould be such a 
gifted labourer. The prophecy was fulfilled through 
the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. Inge- 
nuity has been tasked to the utmost to get rid of 
this example of ordination by presbyters. Bishop 
Onderdonk thinks that the laying on of the hands of 
the presbytery on Timothy may have been connected, 
not with his ordination, but with some missionary 
appointment, such as was assigned, in a similar 
manner, to Paul and Barnabas. But the two events 
are spoken of in very different terms. Nor is there 
any mention of a particular missionary appointment 
in the case of Timothy. The language of Paul in 
relation to him appears quite detached, from any 
special commission — occurring among general coun- 
sels, and designed to stimulate him in the habitual 
discharge of official duty. 

Should the language in question have respect to 
ordination, Bishop Onderdonk thinks that the w r ord 

* 1 Tim. iv. 14. 



268 



ON THE SUBORDINATION OF 



presbytery may denote the office to which Timothy was 
ordained, and not the persons who ordained him. It 
was a laying on of hands to confer the presbytery- 
ship, or office of presbyter. Calvin, in his Institutes, 
noticed this interpretation favourably, but he after- 
wards revoked his approval of it in his Commentary. 
Will Bishop Onclerdonk really accept of this expla- 
nation of the passage ? Will he admit the office of 
Timothy to have been that of presbyter ? No ; this 
rendering is no sooner sanctioned to get rid of or- 
daining presbyters, than it must be moulded and 
mutilated into accordance with prelacy. The pres- 
byterial office, contends the Bishop, must here mean 
the clerical office, without specification of grade ; and 
when Paul names the presbyteryship, he must have 
intended the apostleship ! But Bishop Onderdonk 
has not produced a single passage, either from the 
New Testament or from the Fathers, in which the 
word rendered by our translators presbytery means 
undefinedly clerical office. When the word, in its 
Latinised form, denotes office in ancient writers, it 
is always specifically the office of presbyter. This 
translation, then, is adverse to Episcopacy, for it 
assigns to Timothy the office of presbyter, and makes 
all the ordinations which he presided over presby- 
terial, and not prelatical. 

But is the rendering now discussed at all admis- 
sible ? Did Paul not mean to be specific, and did 
he merely remind Timothy — as the least noted elder 
or deacon might have been reminded — that he held 
an official trust ? The stress of obligation, it seems, 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



209 



is laid on the office, and yet the office is not speci- 
fied ! 

There is no need for straining after such improbable 
interpretations. In the absence of controversy, the 
word presbytery would at once be understood to 
denote a council composed wholly or mainly of pres- 
byters. It occurs three times in the New Testament. 
In two of these instances it denotes the Sanhedrim, 
or assembled elders of the Jews. " As soon as it was 
day," says Luke, " the elders [the presbytery] of the 
people . . . led him into their council." * No one 
thinks of proving that presbytery here means, or can 
mean, something else than a deliberative body taking 
its name from presbyters as its members. " The high 
priest," said Paul, speaking from the stair of the 
castle, by the permission of the chief captain, " doth 
bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders," f 
— all the presbytery. Who tries to establish that 
presbytery here denotes a certain office, and not 
office-bearers, or a class of functionaries among 
whom presbyters had no place ? It is the same word 
which Paul employs when he speaks of the laying on 
of the hands of the presbytery ; and if it denoted a 
company of elders in the examples formerly noticed, 
we naturally suppose that it does the same here. 
The early Christian fathers frequently call the de- 
liberative council of a particular church its presbytery. 
Even when the imposition of a bishop's hands came 
long after to be pronounced the essential act in ordi- 
nation, elders were permitted to impose hands with 
* Luke xxii. 66. t Acts xxii. 5. 



270 



ON THE SUBORDINATION OF 



the bishop, in evident allusion to the passages now 
commented on, to avoid open collision with apostolic 
usage. " The sense of the word <7rge<fj3vregos" [pres- 
byter], says Principal Campbell, " as well as the 
application of the word irps<ff3uregioy [presbytery] 
in other places to a convention of those called 
npstff3v7SPoi [presbyters], determines the sense of the 
word in this passage ; and, indeed, all Christian an- 
tiquity concurs in affixing this name to what may be 
called the consistory of a particular church, or the 
college of its pastors/' * 

Suppose that the word presbytery might signify 
something else than a council of elders, why leave 
this more obvious sense, sanctioned as it is by New 
Testament usage, and search about for other possible 
meanings, unless it is determined beforehand that 
presbyters shall not ordain, and that Scripture shall 
not countenance such ordination ? 

There is no collision between the views which have 
just been offered and the w r ords of Paul : " Where- 
fore I put thee in remembrance, that thou stir up 
the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on 
of my hands." j On the understanding that the 
same act of ordination is here intended, we learn that 
Paul was a party to it ; but so was each member of the 
presbytery, otherwise one of the passages contradicts 
the other. Any office-bearer who takes part in an 
ordination bears the responsibility of it, and may 
fitly speak of it as his own act, especially when he 
claims attention, on the ground of it, to his own ex- 

* On Eccles. Hist., vol. i., p. 1 32. f 2 Tim. i. 6. 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



271 



hortations. Such language would have a peculiar 
propriety, if, as is probable, Paul presided on the 
occasion. 

What other solution can we adopt ? That Paul 
ordained, say prelatists, and that the presbytery 
merely signified assent. This explanation is arbi- 
trary. It is extremely unlikely that the identical 
act should, to several parties simultaneously engaged 
in it, have totally different significations ; and there 
is not a syllable in Scripture which countenances the 
notion. Wherever the purpose of imposing hands is 
indicated, it is something very distinguishable from 
mere concurrence. In this case, if in any case, the 
imagination is totally inadmissible ; for how can it 
be conceived that in one of the passages cited, Paul 
should have mentioned the presbytery, and the presby- 
tery alone, if the act of the presbyters was a mere 
adjunct to the service ? 

Bishop Onderdonk, after rejecting the conclusions 
drawn from this passage in favour of presbyterial 
ordination, contrasts with its " shadows, clouds, and 
darkness," the noontide radiance of the Episcopal 
argument. " Timothy and Titus," he says, " had the 
ordaining power individually. Timothy was to have 
it ' till the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ/ the 
end of the world : that is, such ministers as Timothy 
were to be perpetuated while the earthly church 
should endure — what he had received of Paul was 
to be ' committed to faithful men ' successively. Is 
there any flaw in this chain of proofs ? do any rea- 
sonable doubts obscure this argument from Scripture ? 



272 



ON THE SUBORDINATION OF 



Xo ! we aver it to be as clear as any matter of 
doctrine or discipline drawn from that holy volume. 
This is enough for an inductive proof of episcopal 
ordination."* Here very much is assumed, and not 
a little is unintentionally conceded. First, it is taken 
for granted that what Timothy was to keep till the 
appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ was the ordaining 
power. We have only to read the passage in its 
connection, to see that the apostle had his thoughts 
on far different topics : " But thou, man of God, 
flee these things ; and follow after righteousness, god- 
liness, faith, love, patience, meekness. Fight the 
good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto 
thou art also called, and hast professed a good pro- 
fession before many witnesses. I give thee charge 
in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and 
before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate wit- 
nessed a good confession, that thou keep this com- 
mandment without spot, unrebukable, until the 
appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ."f Secondly, 
it is taken for granted that Timothy here represents 
an order of ministers holding the identical office to 
the close of time. But no language could be more 
pointedly personal than that which Paul employs : 
" I give thee charge that thou keep." In terms so 
precise does the apostle urge on Timothy his indi- 
vidual preparation for the appearance of Christ. 
Accordingly, Bishop Onderdonk says elsewhere, " Till 
the appearing of Jesus Christ, L e., till Timothy's own 

* Episcopacy Tested by Scripture, p. 80. 
f 1 Tim. vi. 11-14. 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



273 



death." * If we were to generalise the passage, we 
should apply it to all to whom it is applicable ; and 
surely all ministers, irrespectively of "grades," have 
need to exemplify that sustained fidelity which Paul 
here inculcates, as they would have confidence, and 
not be ashamed before Christ at his coming. Thirdly, 
it is assumed that what Timothy received from Paul 
was to be committed to faithful men successively, in 
the sense of perpetuating through successors the 
apostleship. The word successively is not in the text ; 
it is not Paul's but Bishop Onderdonk's. Paul re- 
quires only that the men, whether associates or suc- 
cessors, shall be faithful. The stress is laid, not on 
succession, but on fidelity. In appointing men, says 
the apostle, look to their faithfulness. And what if 
the men should not be faithful ? What if they should 
be in the last degree faithless ? What if they should 
corrupt Christ's doctrine, tyrannise over his people, 
lead dissolute lives, and make no use of their sacred 
office but to aid and screen their multiplied abomina- 
tions ? When the faithfulness of which Paul speaks 
is wanting, does the succession, of which Paul does 
not speak, hold good? Is that which Paul alone 
insists upon of so little consequence that it can be 
dispensed with, and these faithless functionaries 
may still impart the apostolic virtue ? Nay, and it 
depends on the touch of their polluted fingers for 
transmission and preservation ! j* 

These are Bishop Onderdonk's assumptions in the 

* Episcopacy Tested by Scripture, p. 73. 
t Some strange examples of the " faithful men" through whom 

S 



274 



ON THE SUBORDINATION OF 



words I have quoted ; but they also embody a con- 
cession. If the faithful men were of Timothy's own 
order, and perpetuated the apostleship, why did 
Timothy continue to superintend them; and why 
did he still ordain, as if they wanted the power? 
In other passages, Bishop Onderdonk gave us to 

apostolical virtue has been transmitted are furnished in the re- 
cently-discovered work of Hippolytus. The following account 
is derived from Mr Bunsen's four volumes, and is expressed for 
the most part in his own language : — There was, under Corn- 
modus, while Victor was Bishop of Rome, a good Christian soul 
called Carpophorus, who had a Christian slave of the name of 
Callistus, To help on this slave, his master gave him the 
administration of a bank, which he kept in that celebrated 
quarter of Rome called the Piscina Publica. Because of the 
excellent character of Carpophorus, brethren and widows had 
entrusted him with their money; but Callistus was a rogue, 
and abused his master's confidence. When the sums which 
had been deposited were asked for, they were not to be had, and 
Callistus being called to account, made his escape. He ran 
down to the harbour Portus, about twenty miles from Rome, 
and embarked in a ship that was ready to sail. Carpophorus 
pursued him, and reached the vessel by a boat, when Callistus, 
finding that he was to be caught, threw himself into the water, 
and narrowly escaped drowning. The runaway slave and 
swindler was brought back to Rome, where his master put him 
on the domestic tread-mill of the Roman slaveowner, the 
pistrinum. 

In the meantime, the Christians at Rome, following a practice 
not uncommon with them, and willing to commend their Chris- 
tian sympathy in a way which cost them nothing, remonstrated 
with Carpophorus in behalf of Callistus, urging that a new 
chance should be given him for well-doing and character. It 
was represented by Callistus himself, that if he were allowed to 
go at large, he could collect moneys which were due from the 
Jews. On these pleadings, he was released from the tread-mill ; 
but finding himself in a wretched position with society, he 
determined to do something remarkable, which would give a 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



215 



understand that the parties ordained by Timothy 
were presbyters ; and now it appears that these 
faithful men — these trustworthy presbyters — can 
hand down their charge successively through all 
generations ! 

7. Ecclesiastical history shows that the incompetency 

new turn to his fortunes for the better or the worse. With 
this view, he went into a synagogue on the Sabbath-day (our 
Saturday,) and created a riot by interrupting the worship. 
The Jews fell upon him, and beat him, and carried him before 
Fuscianus, the prefect of Rome. By the decision of that judge, 
he was scourged, and exiled to the unwholesome parts of 
Sardinia, so fatal to life in summer. 

From this situation he was extricated by the kind offices of 
Marcia. That lady was mistress to the Emperor ; and when his 
temper became afterwards unbearable, she was privy to the 
conspiracy which put him to death by poison and suffocation. 
Yet this Marcia had the profession of a Christian and church 
member. The legal concubine of an unbeliever was not ex- 
cluded, by the canons of the times, from the communion of the 
church, as long as she kept only to the man she lived with ; 
but there was this awkward circumstance in Marcia's case, 
that she was also the wife of the captain of the guards. Being 
very friendly to the Christian cause, and wishing to do it good 
service, she sent for Bishop Victor, and told him that if he 
would give her the names of Christians transported to Sardinia, 
she would intercede for them with the Emperor. Victor made 
out a list, from which he omitted the name of Callistus, as con- 
sidering him a base criminal, who was suffering the penalty 
due to his misconduct. 

Marcia obtained a letter of pardon for all the parties named 
by Victor ; and Hyacinthus, a eunuch of the palace, and a 
presbyter of the church, was despatched to the governor of the 
island to recall the martyrs. Hyacinthus delivered his list, and 
Callistus, finding that his name was not there, began, by tears 
and entreaties, to move Hyacinthus to obtain his liberation 
also, which, by Marcia's influence, was accomplished. When 
the exiles returned, Victor, the Bishop, was ashamed and vexed 



276 



ON THE SUBORDINATION OF 



of elders to ordain icas a doctrine gradually introduced 
into the church, and not held or acted on from the begin- 
ning. I do not constitute the Fathers the interpreters 
of Scripture, and then overrule Scripture by their in- 
terpretation. We are quite as free as they were to 
ascertain the sense of Scripture for ourselves. Their 
tenets must be tried at the bar of revelation ; and it 
is our solemn duty, as well as lofty privilege, to search 
the Scriptures daily whether these things be so. The 
earlier Christian writers, however, as I have before 
intimated, may be expected to throw some light on 
matters of fact ; and in so far as they record ancient 

to find that Callistus was among them ; for his master was still 
alive, and the scandal of his misconduct was still fresh. There- 
fore, to get him out of the way, Victor sent him to Antium, 
and allowed him a certain sum a month. When Carpophorus 
was dead, Zephyrinus, who had succeeded Victor, also deceased, 
in the Bishopric of Rome, made Callistus his coadjutor in col- 
lecting his revenues and keeping Lis clergy in order. This 
Zephyrinus was stupid, ignorant, and fond of bribes ; and by 
studying his humour and doing his pleasure, Callistus got 
everything his own way. At last Zephyrinus died ; and so well 
had Callistus prepared the way for what should follow, that he 
was elected Bishop— so that a convicted swindler became first, 
as we should say, Cardinal Vicar, and then Pope ! 

His episcopacy corresponded 'in character with his previous 
career. He espoused and propagated Sabellian doctrine, and 
yet, to serve a purpose, treated Sabellius harshly. He gave 
ready pardon to excommunicated offenders, and set up a school, 
in which he taught those flocking to it that discipline was un- 
scriptural — that the tares should be allowed to grow with the 
wheat ; and as there were unclean beasts in the ark, so unclean 
persons should find room in the church. In a word, this Cal- 
listus was, in the opinion of Hippolytus, (who on some points 
may have judged too severely), at once the moral and doctrinal 
corrupter of his church and age. Must we consider such a 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



277 



usages on their own observation, or from information 
ample and recent, we should attach some consequence 
to their testimony. Under this aspect alone I now 
appeal very briefly to their writings. 

Clemens Eomanus, supposed to be the Clemens 
mentioned by Paul, speaks, in writing to the Corin- 
thians, only of two orders in the ministry — bishops 
and deacons, and requires obedience only to these 
guides.* Polycarp, writing to the Philippians about 
sixty years after the date of Paul's letters to them, 
makes mention, in like manner, only of presbyters 
and deacons. These fathers, in knowing nothing of 

teacher one of the "faithful men" through whom Paul's instruc- 
tions to Timothy have been carried into effect ? Surely such an 
opinion may be left to the Romanists, who have canonised 
Callistus as a saint, and who celebrate his festival on the 
14th of October. 

One of the most esteemed Scripture expositors of our country 
and age (Rev. Dr Brown) says, in a note with which I am 
favoured, Bunsen's " Hippolytus" " is a most remarkable book. 
It shows how very soon the ancient church became a very differ- 
ent body from the apostolic church, and how very different a 
body the Roman Church is from the ancient church. How far 
were they from the apostles, though the last of them was not one 
hundred years dead when the baptismal water was to be prepared 
by being prayed over at the hour of the crowing of the cock, and 
when a man like Callistus could be made a bishop ! The book 
clearly proves that there is no safe ground beyond the limits of the 
New Testament. I believe Bunsen is quite right when he says, 
that the publication of the work, which I think he has satisfac- 
torily proved to be Hippolytus\ has fully doubled our accurate 
information respecting the church of the age immediately 
succeeding the apostolic." 

* " Clement speaks of an ordinance which supposes onl y two 
orders in the church : elders, called also overseers, or bishops, 
and deacons." — (Bunsen's Ilippolytus, vol. ii., p. 231.) 



278 



ON THE SUBORDINATION OP 



prelates, have sufficiently discountenanced prelatic 
ordination. Much stress is laid by Episcopalians on 
the testimony of Ignatius, who wrote between Cle- 
ment and Polycarp, and who is the first to speak of 
three orders. But his writings, by their anachronisms 
and other marks of spuriousness, give unmistakeable 
evidence, if not of wholesale forgery, at least of 
abounding inter polations.* And even his writings 
have not been sufficiently modernised to suit our 
existing prelacy. His bishop is only the presiding 
presbyter of an individual congregation, aided by 
other presbyters of the same society ; or, in other 
words, he is the moderator of the session. In this 
sense we have three orders also — pastors, elders, 
and deacons. As Ignatius says nothing of diocesan 

* " Letter to the Trallians, said to be by Ignatius, a fictitious 
epistle." — Bunsen's Hip., vol. i., see let. p. 59. "Bunsen has 
shown that four of the seven epistles mentioned by Eusebius as 
those of Ignatius are forged, and that the three only found 
in the Syriac are genuine." — Edin. Review for Jan. 1853, art. i. 
The accomplished Editor of Owen's Works, as lately published 
by the Messrs Johnstone and Hunter, Edinburgh, has a note on 
the Epistles of Ignatius, giving a clear and compendious view of 
the controversy regarding their genuineness. In that note it 
is said — " The conjecture of Usher respecting the probability of 
a Syriac manuscript was verified by the discovery of a Syriac 
version of the Epistle to Polycarp among some ancient manu- 
scripts, procured by Archdeacon Tattam, in 1838 or 1839, from 
a monastery in the Desert of Nitria. Mr Cureton, who dis- 
covered the epistle among these manuscripts, set on foot a 
new search for other manuscripts. The result was, that the 
archdeacon, by a second expedition to Egypt, brought home in 
1843 three entire epistles in Syriac, to Polycarp, to the 
Ephesians, and to the Romans. ... At present the amount of 
evidence seems in favour of the three Syriac epistles, as all the 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



279 



bishops, his testimony is all against their right to be 
in the church, and, of course, against their exclusive 
right to ordain. Cyprian, in his fifth epistle, writing 
to his presbyters and deacons at Carthage, from whom, 
for the time, he was separated, implores them to " dis- 
charge both his functions and their own, that nothing 
might be wanting, either in discipline or diligence." * 
His functions, as discriminated from theirs, could 
only be his peculiar functions, consisting, as Episco- 
palians tell us, in ordination and government. Yet in 
the opinion of Cyprian, presbyters might replace him 
in the fulfilment of them. Firmilian, in writing to 
Cyprian (epist. 43 in some editions, and 75 in others), 
speaks of u all power and grace being constituted in the 
congregations presided over by elders (majores natu), 
who have the power of baptising, imposing the hands, 

genuine remains of Ignatius we possess. It is possible that 
Syriac manuscripts of the other epistles may be discovered, 
although the claim of the former to be not only paramount but 
exclusive has been argued with great force, on the ground that 
had the latter existed, they would certainly have been the 
subject of appeal in many controversies by many fathers who 
utterly ignore them, as well as from the closing words of the 
recently discovered manuscripts, 1 Here end the three epistles of 
Ignatius, bishop and martyr. ' . . . But how fares the question 
of ecclesiastical polity, — the point which brought these epistles 
into dispute between Owen and Hammond, — by the discovery 
of the Syriac manuscript ? All the passages in favour of the 
hierarchy disappear in it, except the following from the epistle 
to Polycarp, ' Look to the bishop, that God also may look upon 
you. I will be instead of the souls of those who are subject to 
the bishop, and the presbyters, .and the deacons.' " 

* " Peto vos pro fide et religione vestra fungamini illic et 
vestris partibus et meis ut nihil vel ad disciplinam vel ad 
diligentiam desit.''' 



280 



ON THE SUBORDINATION OF 



and ordaining" * Hilary, the Roman deacon, who 
wrote in the middle of the fourth century, and whose 
valuable commentary on the Epistles of Paul is bound 
up with the works of Ambrose, tells us in his com- 
ments on 1 Tim. iii., that the bishop was merely the 
oldest presbyter, and that he had the same ordination. 
The learned Jerome, who wrote about the close of 
the fourth century, in his epistle to Evagrius, repre- 
sents Paul as " perspicuously teaching that presbyters 
were the same as bishops." In declaring these office- 
bearers to be identical, he of course identifies their 
ordination and ordaining power. 

Eusebius, who wrote in the third and fourth cen- 
turies, has a passage in his Ecclesiastical History, 
lib. iii., c. 33, of which Bishop Onderdonk quotes an 
old translation, and in which, as thus translated, the 
following sentences occur : " The greater part of the 
disciples then living, affected with great zeal towards 
the Word of Grod, first fulfilling the heavenly com- 
mandment, distributed their substance unto the poor: 
next, taking their journey, fulfilled the words and 
office of evangelists, that is, they preached Christ unto 
them which as yet heard not of the doctrine of faith, 
and published earnestly the doctrine of the holy 
gospel. These men having planted the faith in 
sundry new and strange places, ordained there other 
pastors, committing unto them the tillage of the new 
ground, and the oversight of such as were lately con- 

* " Omnis potestas et gratia in ecclesia const itut-a sit ubi 
president majores natu qui et baptizandi et manum imponendi 
et ordinandi possident potestatem." 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



281 



verted unto the faith, passing themselves unto other 
people and countries, being holpen thereunto by the 
grace of God which wrought with them ; for as yet 
by the power of the Holy Ghost they wrought mira- 
culously, so that an innumerable multitude of men 
embraced the religion of the Almighty God at the first 
hearing, with prompt and willing minds." * " These 
men ordained." What men ordained ? The antece- 
dent is " the greater part of the disciples then living." 
It would be difficult to assign any sense to these 
words that would make the greater part of the dis- 
ciples then living diocesan bishops. The evasions of 
Bishop Onderdonk are not satisfactory. To say that 
Eusebius describes what took place long before his 
time, and what he therefore knew imperfectly, is in 
effect to allege that his history is never to be trusted, 
unless when he narrates the events of his own day. 
Even were it so, the language of Eusebius shows what 
he considers to have been allowable, and likely to have 
happened. To say that Eusebius speaks only of the 
rich among the disciples, and that, even as thus under- 
stood, the expression is magniloquent and oratorical, 
and not fit to be the basis of any argument concern- 
ing the number of the early evangelists, is not to 
explain but to annul history. But "ecclesiastical his- 
torians," we are told, " sometimes speak of a person's 
ordaining, who did not perform the rite himself, but 
had it done by another ; as the historian Socrates says 
of the Emperor Constantine, 6 when he had builded 
churches among them, he hastened to consecrate them 

* Episcopacy Tested by Scripture, Post., p. 41. 



282 



ON THE SUBORDINATION OF 



a bishop, and to ordain the holy company of clergy- 
men/ If it be thus said that Constantine consecrated 
and ordained, though he only employed bishops to do 
so, it is competent for us to infer that the same must 
be meant, if Eusebius is understood to say that evan- 
gelists, not of the highest ministerial rank, ordained ; 
they only caused persons to be ordained by the minis- 
ters of that rank." * Here the " sometimes " is sup- 
ported by a solitary instance ; and what is it ? The 
emperor, who acted as head of the church, ordained 
by his ecclesiastical creatures ! Principal Campbell 
says of the rulers of the church of those times, that 
" the very erection of the dignities, and the investiture 
of the dignitaries, were generally effected by the im- 
perial edict." f We need not wonder, under such cir- 
cumstances, that ordination should be ascribed to the 
emperor. This was the case of a superior acting 
through inferiors. Where is an example of an act being 
ascribed to inferiors which they performed through 
superiors ? Where, again, have evangelists the pnaise 
where prelates did the work ? But Eusebius, we are 
reminded, speaks elsewhere of ordination by apostles 
and bishops. Yes ; but we have also seen that he speaks 
of ordination by evangelists. Between these modes of 
speaking there is no contradiction. Ordination may 
have been conducted by all the parties named — 
apostles, bishops, evangelists. He is also full, we are ad- 
monished, of the successions of various lines of bishops 
down from the apostles. Neither is that circumstance 

* Episcopacy Tested by Scripture, Post., p. 42. 
f On Church History, vol. i. p. 394 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



283 



at all decisive of the question in dispute. It is still 
considered by ministers an honourable distinction to 
succeed an eminent minister : but though that suc- 
cession may be valued and recorded, it is not there- 
fore deemed essential to the ministry. It is plain, 
also, that if presbyters, who never attained to higher 
than presbyter ate functions, were in some instances or- 
dained to them by apostles, and might be able to 
trace their ordination to some member of the apos- 
tolic college, evangelists might, in the same sense, 
claim succession without leaving their proper status, 
or pretending to prelatic dignity. The testimony of 
Eusebius to ordination by a throng of evangelists, who 
could not have been all diocesan bishops, is not impaired 
by such objections. 

I trust that the right of elders to ordain, as well as 
to rule, has been satisfactorily established. If we 
suppose the proof to have been inadequate, what fol- 
lows ? Certainly not the vindication of prelacy. Paul 
ordained, Timothy ordained ; but we cannot bring 
back apostles and evangelists ; and having proved 
their offices to have been extraordinary and tempo- 
rary, we call in vain for their successors. Are we, 
then, to create a new class of functionaries, and con- 
stitute them the sole ordainers, in order to keep 
clear of presbyters ? Surely it were better to explain 
the power of presbyters liberally, than to enact the 
twofold invention of calling into being a class of dio- 
cesans unknown to the inspired penmen, and then of 
assigning to these man-made superiors a higher grade 
of duties than we think fit to confide to presbyter- 



284 



ON THE SUBORDINATION OF 



bishops, a confessedly scriptural order of ecclesiastical 
officers. 

If the foregoing discussion has any conclusive- 
ness, the doctrine of a Christian ministry in three 
orders is not to be found in Scripture. Let it be 
remembered that many who are opponents on the 
general question are here of our opinion, and that, 
in times the most searching and enlightened, the 
divine right of Episcopacy has been given up by 
Episcopalians with general consent. The celebrated 
Dodwell maintained that the apostles instituted only 
the order of presbyters, and left the order of pre- 
latists to arise ojit of facts. Even Hammond, who 
reversed the supposition, and regarded the apostles 
as appointing only diocesan bishops along with dea- 
cons, found in Scripture only two orders, and left a 
ministry of three orders to the origination and defence 
of expediency. In the "Erudition of a Christian Man," 
a treatise drawn up by a committee of bishops and 
divines, approved of by both Houses of Parliament, 
and published with a Preface in the name of King 
Henry VIII., it is said, " Of these two orders only, 
that is to say, priests and deacons, Scripture maketh 
express mention, and how they were conferred of the 
apostles by prayer and imposition of hands ; but the 
primitive church afterwards appointed inferior de- 
grees, as sub-deacons, acolytes, exorcists, &c; but 
lest peradventure it might be thought by some that 
such authorities, powers, and jurisdictions as patri- 
archs, primates, archbishops, and metropolitans now 
have, or heretofore at any time have had, justly and 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 28/5 

lawfully over other bishops, were given them by Grod 
in holy Scripture, we think it expedient and neces- 
sary that all men should be advertised and taught, 
that all such lawful power and authority of any one 
bishop over another were and be given them by the 
consent, ordinances, and positive laws of men only, 
and not by any ordinance of Grod in holy Scripture ; 
and all such power and authority which any bishop 
has used over another, which has not been given him 
by such consent and ordinance of men, is in very 
deed no lawful power, but plain usurpation and 
tyranny." * 



CHAPTER VI. 
Sect. IV.— Concluding Remarks. 

There are many able and excellent ministers in the 
Church of England. One cannot enter their society 
without being charmed by their mental cultivation, 
their refined manners, their deep-toned piety, and 
official devotedness. Many of the private members 
of the English Church command like respect and 
admiration by their decided godliness. It is to these 
excellent of the earth we specially make our appeal, 
in beseeching the friends of Episcopacy to reconsider 
its grounds. Is a system of such complication, and 
pomp, and lordly control, really sanctioned by the 
New Testament, or compatible with the simplicity 

* Neal's History of the Puritans, vol. i. p. 25. 



286 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF 

that is in Christ ? At the present time there i 
special need to consider whether it has any affinity to 
Eomanism. The Eev. J. M. Rodwell, Bishop Onder- 
donk's editor in this country, speaks of the Church 
of England as " the authorised protester against 
Rome." * But how does this appear when Puseyism 
is active and powerful in that church, and in no 
other ? Is the fellowship of Episcopacy and Puseyism 
a thing of chance ? Surely the facts should be pon- 
dered before this exposition of them is adopted. Let 
any one examine carefully the Episcopal controversy, 
and he will perceive that a great portion of the 
proof adduced in behalf of the Anglican hierarchy 
will favour Rome also, and Rome more. " There is 
always the feature/' says Bishop Onderdonk, " in 
civil governments of magnitude, that many officers, 
and several grades of them, have a common head 
above all." f But whether does a host of bishops or a 
single pope answer best to the description of a com- 
mon head above all ? " Another presumptive argu- 
ment for Episcopacy," says the same writer, " is, that 
in the ministries of all false religions, if extensively 
professed, there are different grades, with a common 
superior." Here the query again presents itself, 
Whether does a multitude of prelates or one spiritual 
superior present most analogy to the old Pontifex 
Maximus of the city on seven hills ? Many have 
been the reasonings in favour of Episcopacy drawn 
from the Mosaic priesthood ; and in all these disqui- 

* Episcopacy Tested by Scripture, p. viii. 
f Ibid., Introduction, p. xi. 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



287 



sitions the high priest answers to the bishops.* But 
one high priest has surely more resemblance to one 
pope than to a prelatical army. Often has the 
Aaronic ministry been asserted by Episcopalians, in 
defending their system, to have been typical of the 
Christian ministry. But what plea could more avail 
Romanists in justifying the sacrifice of the mass and 
human mediation ? 

In her twenty-ninth article the Church of England 
claims power to decree rites and ceremonies, and 
authority in controversies of faith. Such power and 
authority could alone warrant her multiplication of 
functionaries and observances foreign to the apostolic 
age. But if so much may be warrantably introduced, 
where is the demarcation in principle between these 
inventions of the Church of England and those of the 
Church of Rome? The utmost stress has been laid 
by many advocates of Episcopacy on the writings of 
the Christian fathers. But these fathers belong to ages 
in which the antichristian apostasy was developing 
itself. Not a few of them were of that very order of 
bishops who were gradually annulling the rights of 
private members and subordinate office-bearers of the 
church, and more and more assuming all jurisdiction 
and dignity into their own hands. The earlier fathers 
being in effect witnesses against later abuses, were in 
many instances interpolated to bring their sanction of 

* " We see the officers of the church distinguished by their 
respective stations ; the bishop, as governor and inspector of a 
particular portion of it, answering to the high priest under the 
Law.'"— Bishop Skinner's Primitive Truth and Order, chap, 
ii., p. 128. 



288 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF 

priestly devices down to the times ; and if we are to 
regard the mangled remains of Ignatius as a standard 
of theological doctrine, the embryo of almost every 
papal error will be sheltered by his authority. All 
the world knows what importance is widely attached 
in the Church of England to the doctrine of apostolic 
succession. Some of the clergy hold it more strongly, 
others less strongly ; by few of them is it wholly and 
unequivocally repudiated. But that doctrine in all 
its modifications involves an acknowledgment of the 
Eomish Church as a true church ; and every one who 
admits it into his creed is concerned to show that the 
Papal Church is not an apostasy, and that a Popish 
priest is a rightful instructor, while such men as 
those whom Luther, Calvin, and Wesley ordained to 
the ministry, have run without being sent. 

Let an Episcopalian, then, fall back on the first 
principles of his polity : let him delight himself with 
analogies which multiply grades, and which give 
them a common head ; let him draw parallels be- 
tween Mosaic hierarchies and Christian hierarchies, 
and proceed to do substantially what the family of 
Aaron only foreshadowed ; let him largely estimate 
the power of the church, and hold sacred many ap- 
pointments sanctioned only by its ordination ; let him 
slide continually from scriptural argument into eccle- 
siastical tradition, and quote freely from authors who 
can just as well be quoted for purgatory, and prayers 
for the dead, and clerical celibacy ; let him imagine 
what is no matter of revelation, and admits not of 
historical proof, that the clergy of his church have 



PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 



289 



their holy orders by lineal and unbroken succession 
from the apostles, through the Komish Church, and 
hence derive a special authority and consequence as 
ministers of the Word; let him familiarise himself 
with this series of proofs, and grow more confident of 
their validity, and drink deeper into their spirit ; 
and will he not be predisposed to think of Eome — 
owned as a church, and the mother church — with 

| filial regard, and with indulgent if not respectful 

! sentiments ? 

Far am I from saying or thinking that all zealous 

; friends of the Church of England are tinctured with 
Puseyism. Many of its devoted members are in the 
deepest affliction at the rise and growth of that plague 
in their communion. But the question remains, 
whether the defences put up for Episcopacy do not 
naturally and legitimately conduct their ardent stu- 
dent and admirer in the direction of the Tractarians, 
and whether the evangelical section of the English 
Church, in the very act of decrying Puseyism with 
honest indignation, may not be undesignedly lending 
it countenance and strength by adhering to a system 
in which the heresy has its source as well as its seat. 
If I may not affirm that such is the fact, I may invite 
the candid and devout to consider whether these 
things be so ; and let every one of us be careful on 
his own part to prove all things, and hold fast that 
which is good. 



T 



PART VI. 



ON THE COMMON GOVERNMENT OF 
CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE 
COUNCILS. 

If churches are not to be associated under the charge 
of a diocesan, the question arises whether they are to 
have any other kind of common government. It is 
the conviction of Presbyterians that they may and 
should have a joint superintendence by representative 
councils. On behalf of this constituent in our eccle- 
siastical polity, I offer the following pleas. 



CHAPTER I. 

We have, in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, 
an account of a Council held at Jerusalem. 

Our Independent brethren usually resolve the decree 
of the apostles and elders into one of simple and 
absolute inspiration. The questions then arise, Why 
should an appeal have been made from one apostle 
to other apostles ; or, in other words, from inspiration 
to inspiration ? and why should an appeal have been 
made from an apostle to elders ; in other words, from 



ON THE COMMON GOVERNMENT, ETC. 291 

an inspired man to men who were uninspired ? Dr 
Wardlaw thinks that he answers these questions, and 
clears up the whole case, by telling us that there were 
in the appeal two points to be ascertained : a point of 
doctrine, and a point of fact. " The point of doctrine 
was one of the very first magnitude, involving the 
freedom of the Gentiles from the yoke of the Mosaic 
law, and the justification of both Jews and Gentiles 
by faith, without the deeds of the law; the latter 
being the very first principle of the gospel. The point 
of fact was, whether those men who had come down 
from Jerusalem, pretending that they had a commis- 
sion hence to preach the doctrine of the necessity of 
subjection to the law for justification, really had such 
a commission." * According to this principle of inter- 
pretation, an appeal was made to the apostles as to 
the doctrine, and to them and the elders as to the 
fact. This solution of the difficulties is certainly 
ingenious ; but the longer I consider it, I am the less 
convinced of its truth. The question of fact is all- 
important in Dr Wardlaw's exegesis ; and if it had 
been equally important in the narrative, it should have 
got some prominence there also. We are not so much 
as told, however, in the opening statement of the case, 
that the Judaising teachers pretended to have a com- 
mission from Jerusalem. Even Jerusalem is not 
named. " Certain men, who came down from Judea, 
taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circum- 
cised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved." 
Here the only authority spoken of as appealed to is 

* Congreg. Indep., p. 302. 



292 



ON THE COMMON GOVERNMENT OF 



not that of any party in Jerusalem, but that of the 
Jewish lawgiver, Moses. "When, therefore, Paul 
and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation 
with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, 
and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem, 
unto the apostles and elders, about this question." 
What question ? The question whether these advo- 
cates of circumcision had a commission from Jeru- 
salem ? No such question has been yet mentioned or 
hinted at. The only question previously announced 
was the question of doctrine, whether the uncircum- 
cised could be saved. 

On coming to Jerusalem, Paul and Barnabas " were 
received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, 
and they declared all things that God had done with 
them. But there rose up certain of the sect of the 
Pharisees which believed, saying that it was needful 
to circumcise them, and to command them to keep 
the law of Moses.'' * Here is no mention of the 
"question of fact" whether the apostles and elders had 
commissioned the Judaising teachers ; nor could this 
commission have been claimed where the apostles and 
elders were present to deny it. The sole question 
there discussed — and which seemed to spring up anew 
there — must have been that of doctrine. But the 
controversy there raised gave immediate occasion to 
the subsequent council. For we are told in the 
succeeding verse, " And the apostles and elders came 
together for to consider of this matter." 

In all that is recorded to have been said at the 

* Acts xv. 4, 5. 



CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE COUNCILS. 293 

council, there is still no mention of the fact; the 
speeches are addressed to the doctrine, and the doctrine 
only. The phraseology of the decree gives some 
plausibility to Dr Wardlaw's interpretation : " Foras- 
much as we have heard that certain which went out 
from us have troubled you with words subverting 
your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised and keep 
the law, to whom we gave no such commandment." * 
The countenance here given to the interpretation in 
question is more apparent than real. When the 
parties issuing the decree had spoken of Judaising 
teachers as going out from them, it was most natural 
to guard the churches against the idea that such 
teachers had gone from them with any ivarrant for 
what they taught. But even here it is not alleged that 
the false teachers had pleaded metropolitan authority. 
This truth — if it be a truth — is left to be inferred ; 
and is it likely that ivhat ivas a chief question in the 
debate would not be mentioned in the related occasion 
of the debate or in the report of the debate, but left to 
be learned as a matter of inference from its conclusion ? 

Dr Wardlaw strongly protests against the idea that 
the apostles would ever compromise their character as 
inspired men by entering into common debate. But 
they were confessedly appealed to, along with men 
not inspired, and they allowed the decrees to go forth 
as those of " the apostles and elders." Dr Wardlaw, 
however, reminds us that Paul sometimes associated 
other names with his own at the commencement of 
his epistles. But are these cases parallel? They 

* Acts xv. 24. 



294 



ON THE COMMON GOVERNMENT OF 



seem to me wide as the poles asunder. By the 
usages of antiquity, the occurrence in epistles of 
friendly names in alliance with those of the writers, 
expressed nothing more than kind salutations. But 
what usage, ancient or modern, places on a footing of 
mere friendliness or courtesy the mention of parties 
as appealed to in a grave question, and as issuing the 
decree by which the question was settled ? 

" You will not/' says Dr Wardlaw, "question Paul's 
inspiration. Is it then, to be imagined that the in- 
spired instructions of one who had the mind of Christ, 
and who was not a whit behind the very chiefest 
apostles, were remitted for review, and for judicial 
decision upon their authority, to an uninspired assem- 
bly ? To the churches of Gralatia this apostle asserts 
and jealously vindicates from every suspicion and 
surmise his own direct and independent inspiration,"* 
&c. Yet Dr Wardlaw tells us that " Paul and Bar- 
nabas were simply and exclusively appellants, or, in 
the terminology of modern presbyterian church courts, 
commissioners/'f " They were only the bearers of the 
reference. They had no more to do with the final 
settlement of the question than the parties in any suit 
have a seat on the bench, or a place among the jury. 
. . . Paul and Barnabas were admitted to state facts 
in evidence, but no more/'f Paul, then, by this show- 
ing, did allow his doctrine to be made matter of trial, 
and even sunk the apostle in the commissioner, and 
waived all higher pretensions, in order to state facts in 

* Congreg. Indep., p. 268. f Ibid., p. 289. 

J Ibid., p. 290. 



CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE COUNCILS. 295 



evidence. I cannot think, however, that Paul, in this 
procedure, was a commissioner simply. He was in 
the council, he spoke after Peter, and before James, 
as expressing his mind in the course of the debate ; 
and in declaring what miracles and wonders God had 
wrought among the Gentiles by him, he must have 
treated the subject generally. Was he not of the 
apostles, then, from whom the decrees went forth ? 
The supposition of the contrary appears to me most 
gratuitous and improbable. But these same decrees 
were "ordained of elders," as well as of apostles,* 
and we may not so explain this circumstance as to 
explain it away. 

Let any candid reader peruse the whole narrative, 
and say whether he do not find the uninspired element 
so largely introduced and frequently recurring as to 
render it extremely difficult to resolve the mixed 
discussion and decision into a simple announcement 
of inspiration. But Dr Wardlaw with great power 
presses this difficulty — that if the decree was not 
inspired, it is not binding ; it was infallible only if it 
was divine. In reply, let it be observed, that the 
question was one regarding which the Holy Ghost 
had already furnished grounds of judgment, and that 
the apostles rested their case expressly on prior oracles 
and miraculous attestations. When the apostles and 
elders knew and stated the truth from prior evidences, 
might not the Spirit of God regulate and sanction the 
final expression of the truth so as to justify the lan- 
guage, " It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us?' 

* Acts xvi. 4. 



296 



ON THE COMMON GOVERNMENT OF 



Dr Davidson supposes that even institutions suggested 
at first by natural propriety and common sense 
might become divine by obtaining the divine sanction. 
" The constitution of the first churches/' he says, 
" was adopted because it seemed the best fitted in the 
eye of common sense to promote the great end of such 
societies, and the Deity sanctioned the means so sug- 
gested."* And if this is conceivable in regard to what 
mere prudence suggested, is it not conceivable in 
regard to what had been already suggested, and in 
effect ratified, by the Spirit of God ? If this principle 
be admitted, then all is comparatively plain; we see 
why the Divine and human elements are so blended. 
But otherwise, after all Dr Wardlaw's masterly 
treatment of this topic, I am disposed to say with Dr 
Mason : " Without such a distinction as we have now 
stated, their history (that of the apostles in the case 
under consideration) is a tissue of inconsistencies, and 
their conduct in the Synod of Jerusalem must be given 
up as a riddle which baffles solution."! 

Dr Davidson tells us that the apostles " proposed " 
certain conclusions to the council. But how should 
inspiration propose ? and how should proposals be 
made to parties on whose adoption of proposals 
nothing depended, and who had no power of deli- 
beration in the matter ? 

The sum of the whole is, that the Spirit of God 
allowed apostles and elders to defend truth already 
revealed and attested, by arguments drawn from 
Scripture and providence ; and, for the benefit of the 

* Eccles. Pol, p. 43. f On Episcopacy, p. 294. 



CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE COUNCILS. 297 

churches, eventually sealed by His sanction the just 
conclusions to which they came. 

The question then presents itself, what bearing has 
the fifteenth chapter of the Acts, as now explained, 
on the question of church courts ? I freely admit that 
I do not find here all the elements of a court of review. 
There must be a good deal supplied before a modern 
church judicatory can be here completed. But, on 
the other hand, the subject of dispute might have 
been decided by simple oracles and miracles. And 
I cannot perceive why co-operative and deliberative 
elements were so largely introduced, and made to 
bear authoritatively on many churches, if not to 
indicate the joint and mutually helpful manner in 
which differences of aftertimes should be settled, 
when inspiration should be withdrawn — with only 
such alterations as would necessarily result from 
altered circumstances. 



CHAPTER II. 

In the Apostolic age there was a plurality of Churches in each 
of a number of cities, and the several Churches of each 
city had a common government. 

This is a part of the argument to which I attach a 
principal importance; and I invite my readers to 
weigh well the proof that shall be offered them. " I 
speak as unto wise men, judge ye what I say." It 
can be shown, I think, that in such large cities as 



298 



ON THE COMMON GOVERNMENT OF 



Jerusalem and Ephesus, the Christians and their 
teachers were so numerous that we cannot reasonably 
suppose them to have met only in one place for wor- 
shijD — that in such cities the Christians certainly met 
for worship in different places, and the Christians at- 
tending different places of meeting in the same city 
formed distinct churches — and yet that these sectional 
churches belonged to aggregate churches, and had a 
common government. 

Sect. I. — In such large cities as Jerusalem and Ephesus the 
Christians and their teachers were so numerous that we 
cannot reasonably suppose them to have met only in one 
place for worship. 

Dr Davidson maintains that the word church occurs 
in two senses in the New Testament. " In the first 
place," he says, " it is used to denote the whole body 
of believers, the true people of Christ on earth and 
[in] heaven." It does not concern us at present to 
discuss the accuracy of this definition of the catholic 
church. " Secondly, the term church," says Dr 
Davidson, " signifies a number of believers habitually 
assembling for the worship of God in one place." * 
" The disciples were accustomed to meet for worship 
and other ordinances (in Jerusalem), not in sections 
scattered here and there throughout the city, called 
congregations, but together in the same place." f 

If there were several churches in Jerusalem, or in 
Ephesus, or any great city, having such a common 
relation and superintendence that they were called in 

* Eccles. Pol., p. 59. f Ibid., p. 95. . 



CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE COUNCILS. 299 

the aggregate one church, there would be here nothing 
like Independency, but an approximation, at least, to 
the numerous congregations and collective govern- 
ment for which Presbyterians contend. Dr Davidson, 
however, maintains that in each city there was only 
one church, and that its members met habitually 
for worship and for ecclesiastical business in one 
place. He combats the natural objection to these 
principles derived from the number of believers and 
teachers in many great cities. How could the con- 
verts in those populous towns where the gospel was 
most successful be accommodated in a single building? 
and if this had been practicable, how could the nume- 
rous teachers in these cities have found room for the 
exercise of their functions ? 

The mode in which Dr Davidson meets these diffi- 
culties does not seem to me to be at all satisfactory. 
He takes every numerical term in its most restricted 
acceptation ; and feeling that the difficulty still re- 
mains, quotes Carson's words : " Is there a single 
passage in all the history in which they are said 
or supposed, either expressly or by implication, to 
have been divided into distinct congregations? If 
there were really a difficulty as to their number, a 
difficulty can never destroy a fact, far less be tlie 
foundation of an opposite system/'* A difficulty 
can never destroy a fact — certainly not ; but a diffi- 
culty may be such as to cast doubt on a supposed fact, 
and create reasonable suspicion that the so-called 
fact is only a fallacy. 

* Eccles. Pol., p. 74. 



300 ON THE COMMON GOVERNMENT OF 

Let the reader peruse dispassionately the notices 
which the New Testament gives us of the numerical 
strength of the church at Jerusalem : — 

1. "The same day (Pentecost) were added unt 
them about three thousand souls." * 

2. " And the Lord added to the church daily sue 
as should be saved." f 

3. " Many of them which heard the word believed ; 
and the number of the men was about five thou- 
sand." J 

4. " Believers were the more added to the Lord, 
multitudes both of men and women." § 

5. " And the word of God increased, and the number 
of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly." || 

6. " Thou seest, brother, how many thousands 
(myriads) of Jews there are who believe." ^ 

Dr Wardlaw's statements in regard to these num- 
bers are ingenuous. He says, " The terms in which 
the progressive increase of the church is recorded are 
very strong." While Dr Davidson holds that the five 
thousand men included women, Dr Wardlaw says 
that they are evidently exclusive of the other sex, 
of whom the number is not stated ; and while Dr 
Davidson insists that the five thousand included 
prior converts, Dr Wardlaw concedes that they 
"were converted on one occasion." " The question 
is," he subjoins, "how could such multitudes form 
only a single congregation ? The question is a 
natural and a fair one. In meeting it I would not 

* Acts ii. 41. f Acts ii. 47. J Acts iv. 4. 

§ Acts v. 14. || Acts yi. 7. U Acts xxi. 20. 



CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE COUNCILS. 301 



be such a recreant to all candour as to deny all 
difficulty." * 

Suppose we consent to all the cutting and curtail- 
ing by which Dr Davidson and others reduce the 
apparent increase of believers, and adopt such a re- 
stricted interpretation as, in the judgment of Dr 
Wardlaw, is " unnatural/' still does not the inspired 
narrative leave the impression that the many thou- 
sands and superadded multitudes of which it speaks 
could not by any possibility assemble for ordinary, 
stated, habitual worship in one place of meeting; and 
that adequate employment for the teaching gifts of 
apostles and other instructors having their central 
position in Jerusalem, is by such a theory of exposi- 
tion utterly unimaginable? 

We can conceive that the temple might be a place 
of general resort, frequented by companies of Chris- 
tians at different hours, according to their conveni- 
ence — an edifice ever open, to which believers were 
coming and going, and where they appointed meet- 
ings with each other ; and which, under such aspects, 
might be considered their common rendezvous. We 
can conceive, farther, that they might have occasion- 
ally there such meetings as we would call public, 
meaning simply that the business concerned all, and 
none were excluded. So we have petitions which go 
forth from the citizens of Glasgow in public meeting 
assembled. And perhaps some antiquarian will find, 
eighteen hundred years hence, one of our newspapers 
containing such language, and clearly prove from it 

* Congreg. Indep., p. 50. 



302 ON THE COMMON GOVERNMENT OF 

that the citizens of Glasgow could, in the nineteent 
century, be all accommodated in the City Hal 
Other circumstances may be appealed to as demon 
strating that the citizens of Glasgow then amounted 
to very many thousands. But our expositor won't 
be moved by difficulties which cannot demolish facts, 
and he proves decisively from his text that in the 
year of our Lord 1853 the citizens of Glasgow could 
be assembled in one public meeting. 

In the critical circumstances of the primitive 
church, when the enmity which slew Jesus watched 
malignantly his followers, we have some difficulty in 
perceiving how the Christians would be permitted, 
even in rare and extraordinary cases, to throng the 
courts of the temple by a full muster of all their 
" myriads." But that the temple of the Jews should 
have been statedly appropriated to Christian worship, 
and that, from week to week, and month to month, 
and year to year, the Christians should have assem- 
bled in its courts, deterred neither by inclement 
weather nor by more direful persecution, is a suppo- 
sition presenting not merely a formidable difficulty, 
but all the features of moral and physical impossi- 
bility. Beyond this impossibility remains the other 
of finding by such an hypothesis effective occupation 
for numerous teachers. 

The dwellers of Jerusalem, it must also be re- 
membered, were of different countries, and spoke 
different languages ; and if this fact gave origin to 
many distinct synagogues, did it not induce the 
Christians to form themselves into distinct congre- 



CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE COUNCILS. 303 



gations, that all might be instructed in the tongues 
which they best understood ? 

But Dr Wardlaw adheres to the letter of the nar- 
rative, and asks : " How stands the argument ? We 
have the fact on inspired record, that the multitudes 
of the disciples met together ; we have in opposition 
to this the affirmation of our Presbyterian brethren, 
that their so meeting was impossible. Oar brethren 
say they could not, the inspired historian says they 
did. Here, then, is a balance of difficulties." * If 
there be any dilemma here, Dr Wardlaw kindly ex- 
tricates us from its horns by another section of his 
reasoning. He will have general language about 
meetings of the saints in Jerusalem to be absolutely 
taken. But when he comes to speak of the disper- 
sion of these saints, the like general language admits 
and demands a restricted sense. He then insists on 
the " unreasonableness of a strictly literal interpre- 
tation of the word all" " Every one knows," he 
says, " in how very general and indefinite a sense all 
is frequently used. To take a single example. In 
Matt. iii. 56, it is said respecting the ministry of 
John the Baptist, ' There went out to him J erusalem, 
and all Judea, and all the region round about Jor- 
dan, and were baptised of him in Jordan, confessing 
their sins.' No man in his senses will ever suppose 
that there was not an inhabitant left remaining in 
city or country. Every one understands the mean- 
ing simply to be, that the people went out in very 
great numbers This is the more evident 

* Congreg. Indep., p. 54. 



304 ON THE COMMON GOVERNMENT OF 



from the comparative statement given as to Jesus. 
. . . . That Jesus made and baptised more dis- 
ciples than John. Why, then, is the all to be taken 
in its strict laterality in the instance under consider- 
ation?"* According to this reasoning, there went 
out to John not only Jerusalem, but all Judea, and 
all the region round about Jordan, and yet in such 
a sense that many were not included in the all ; and 
at the very same time when John was baptising in 
Jordan there may have been, and to a moral certainty 
there were, religious services in the temple, and in 
numerous synagogues. So if it be admitted that all 
the Christians met in one place, and that place the 
temple, why may they not have assembled in a sense 
that left many out of the all, and permitted of many 
meetings for worship in different parts of the city 
and its environs ? The two cases seem to be identi- 
cal in principle, and if so, where is the balance of 
difficulties ? or where is there any difficulty at all ? 

The principle of strict literality cannot be carried 
out in any explanation of the passage. " They con- 
tinued daily with one accord in the temple." Liter- 
ally interpreted, these words teach us that the 
Christians, besides being all in the temple, were 
always there. They continued in it. You say the 
continuance must be understood with limitations ; if 
so, why not also the " one accord" — the numerical 
attendance ? But Drs Wardlaw and Davidson re- 
mind us in italics that all that believed " were 
together" f Dr Lightfoot says of the expression 

* Congreg. Indep., p. 80. t Acts ii. 44. 



CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE COUNCILS. 305 

together {14} to avrb) that it is of frequent and vari- 
ous use in the Septuagint : " It sometimes betokeneth 
the meeting of persons in the same company, as 
Josh. xi. 5, Judg. vi. 33, and xix. 6, &c, so of 
beasts, Deut. xxii. 10. Sometimes their concurring 
in the same action, though not in the same company 
or place, as Psal. ii. 2, and xxxiv. 3, and xlix. 2, and 
lxxiv. 6, and lxxxiii. 3, &c. Sometimes their con- 
curring in the same condition, as Psal. xlvi. 10, and 
lxii. 9, Esa. lxvi. 17, Jer. vi. 12. And sometimes 
their knitting together, though in several companies, 
as Joab's and Abner's men, though they sat at a dis- 
tance, and the pool of Gribeon between them, yet 
are they said tfvvavrav ski to gcvto, 2 Sam. ii. 13. 
And in this sense is the word to be understood in 
the story. For it is past all imagination or conceiv- 
ing, that all those thousands of believers that were 
now in Jerusalem should keep all of one company 
and knot, and not part asunder ; for what house 
would hold them ? But they kept in several com- 
panies or congregations, according as their languages, 
nations, or other references did knit them together. 
And this joining together, because it was apart from 
those who believed not, and because it was in the 
same profession and practice of the duties of reli- 
gion ; therefore it is said to be liri to ccvto, though it 
were in several companies or congregations." * 

When Drs Wardlaw and Davidson lay so much 
stress on the statement that all who believed were 
together, they do not sufficiently consider what 

* On Acts ii. 44. 

u 



306 



ON THE COMMON GOVERNMENT OF 



follows — " and had all things common." Surely the 
community of goods, to whatever extent carried, was 
not exemplified in the temple. Surely they did not 
distribute loaves and dresses in Solomon's porch. 
And if it would be ridiculous to apply one part of the 
sentence to the temple, what propriety is there in so 
applying the other clause of the same sentence t The 
being together, and having all things common, are parts 
of one whole, and must be explained consistently. 
Dr Davidson admits the passage in question to be 
parallel with another which informs us after what 
fashion the Christians were together, and points to a 
better than any stone-and-lime identification : " The 
multitude of them that believed were of one heart and 
one soul, neither said any of them that aught of the 
things which they possessed was his own, but they 
had all things common." They were together in 
"heart and soul/' in mutual confidence and com- 
mingling sympathies. 

These remarks have had respect to Jerusalem. 
In other great cities Dr Davidson cannot find a 
temple in which the Christians might worship collec- 
tively. Principal Campbell, a favourite authority 
with Congregationalists, says, " There were yet no 
magnificent edifices built for the reception of Chris- 
tian assemblies, such as were afterwards reared at 
a great expense, and called churches. Their best 
accommodation for more than a century was the 
private houses of the wealthiest disciples, which were 
but ill adapted to receive very numerous conventions."* 

* Lect. vii. on Eccles. Hist., p. 215. 



CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE COUNCILS. 307 



And yet against all seeming possibility, they must be 
held to have worshipped habitually and regularly in 
one ajDartment. 



CHAPTER II. 

Sect. II. — In such large cities the Christians certainly met for 
worship in different places, and the Christians attending 
different places of meeting in the same city formed distinct 
churches. 

It has appeared that in different large cities no one 
building could have sufficed for the numerous Chris- 
tians and their teachers. But if Christians met for 
worship otherwise than in one place, and had in truth 
distinct worshipping societies in the same city, should 
not these facts have been indicated ? The anticipation 
I acknowledge to be reasonable, and I think that it 
is verified. " They continued daily with one accord 
in the temple, and breaking bread from house to 
house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness 
of heart." In commenting on these words, Dr 
Davidson observes, " When it is said that they 
brake bread from house to house, it is intimated, 
that besides meeting in the temple, they met in 
private houses in little companies, similar to family 
circles, where they partook together of the daily 
meal, and celebrated the supper of the Lord/' 
We have here an acknowledgment that the Christians 
conducted religious exercises, not in the temple 



308 



ON THE COMMON GOVERNMENT OF 



only, but in other abodes. If certain persons met 
regularly in a house of which the situation was 
more convenient for them than any other, and if they 
selected the most suitable time as well as place for 
their solemn services, and took care, as regarded 
speakers and hearers, that all things were done 
decently and in order, would it have been improper 
to call parties thus associated a church ? There is an 
apparent answer to this query in the undeniable fact, 
that we actually read of churches in houses. Of 
these churches, Dr Davidson says, "Had godly house- 
holds been all that was intended by the phrase before 
us, they would not probably have been saluted as 
churches in houses. These considerations, with others 
that might be mentioned, incline us to believe that the 
phrase denotes a company of believers meeting, in a 
church capacity, in the houses of Aquila, Nymphas, 
and Philemon The person at whose habi- 
tation a part of them assembled may have been an 
eminent teacher of righteousness ; or his dwelling 
may have presented peculiar advantages in the midst 
of persecution ; or his premises may have contained 
an apartment large enough to accommodate a 
considerable-miniber. Thus Meander thinks that the 
nature of Aquila' s employment required extensive 
premises, and that, therefore, he could set apart a 
room for the use of disciples wherever he fixed his 
abode. When we also take into account his religious 
qualifications, it is natural to suppose that he 
frequently led the devotions of these small assemblies. 
. , . . Philemon, who is also said to have had a 



CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE COUNCILS. 309 

church in his house, was a wealthy member of the 
church at Colosse, distinguished for his hospitality 
towards Christian brethren, especially evangelists. 
Some think that he was a deacon, others a bishop ; 
but it is now impossible to discover what office he 
filled, or in what rank he moved. He is styled by 
Paul & fellow-worker ; so that we are inclined to draw 
the conclusion that he was a Christian teacher, one 
qualified and accustomed to impart instruction. . . . 
It may be inferred that the circumstances connected 
with Nymphas and his house were similar, although 
the New Testament furnishes no information respect- 
ing him except the incidental mention of a church in 
his house near Laodicea. In short, every view that 
can be taken of the matter shows that the expression 
6 church in the house/ denotes not merely the pious 
members of a single house, but a number of believers 
meeting in a private dwelling, or in the premises 
connected with it, for conducting religious exercises 
in the name of the holy Kedeemer." * In these 
passages it is distinctly admitted that the believers 
who assembled in the houses mentioned met in a 
church capacity. Dr Davidson also thinks that the 
nature of churches in houses may have some light 
thrown on it by the words of Justin : " ' I am staying 
at the house of one Martinus, and I know of no other 
place of meeting beside this ; and if any one wished 
to come to me, I communicated to him the words 
of truth/ The persons who thus repaired to 
Justin's house for instruction constituted, according 

* Eccles. Pol., pp. 99, 100. 



310 



ON THE COMMON GOVERNMENT OF 



to Neander, 6 the church in Justin's house/ " * If 
we apply these remarks to the case of Jerusalem, 
surely the meetings for worship in the dwellings of 
that city could not have been more simple than 
those to which, in the estimation of Dr Davidson, 
the word church was actually applied. And if so, 
then we have many churches in one church, many 
sectional churches in one aggregate church of 
J erusalem, and distinctive societies managing matters 
more immediately concerning themselves in their own 
way, while matters of more general concern were 
regulated by a common ecclesiastical administration. 

But is the term "church" ever applied to the 
believers in a city, and contemporaneously to a sec- 
tion of these believers ? The question is of minor 
consequence. When it is allowed that there were 
churches in houses, and larger worshipping societies 
in the same cities, all that remains to be settled is a 
matter of nomenclature. Still, we read of churches 
in Laodicea, and churches in Corinth. There was 
a church of Laodicea comprising the believers of 
the city, and there was a church in the house of 
Nymphas at Laodicea, in which a few believers 
could assemble. " Salute the brethren which are in 
Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his 
house, and when this epistle is read among you, cause 
that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans! 9 
Is there not here a church of the Laodiceans, and a 
church at Laodicea in the house of Nymphas? — a 
larger church comprising a smaller, though both were 

* Eccles. Pol., p. 101. 



CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE COUNCILS. 311 

local? Dr Davidson, in defending his principles, 
admits that the example of Nymphas at Laoclicea is 
apparently an exception to them, but not really so, 
he adds, unless it can be proved that he lived in the 
city rather than its vicinity. Surely it does not lie 
with us to show that the passage teaches what he 
confesses it teaches "apparently:" the burden of 
proof must lie with Dr Davidson, when he holds that 
it teaches what it has no appearance of teaching. As 
Dr Davidson elsewhere observes, " it is natural to 
understand all passages in their obvious meaning, 
.... unless the contrary be suggested by the 
context." * 

Still further, it is said to the Christians at Corinth, 
" Let your women keep silence in the churches." f 
Does not this language indicate that there was a 
church at Corinth subdivided into churches? Dr 
Davidson owns that " in this argument there is some 
plausibility." J Yet " the term," he says, " is suffi- 
ciently interpreted by the previous context. The 
apostle gives a rule which he intends should be 
followed 6 in all the churches of the saints/ He 
uses the plural number, because he has in view all 
the churches as well as that of Corinth." But if his 
intention had been general, would he not have used 
throughout a general phraseology ? Would he not 
have said, " ~Letivomen keep silence in the churches?" 
Why your women, if he did not mean their women 
in particular ? Let Dr Davidson produce another 

* Eccles. Pol., p. 77; see also p. 230. 
. f 1 Cor. xiv. 34. J Eccles. Pol., pp. 114, 115. 



312 



ON THE COMMON GOVERNMENT OF 



example of such special diction without special sig- 
nification. 

Dr "Wardlaw argues that the churches spoken of 
may mean churches out of Corinth, because " the two 
epistles to the Corinthians, though addressed no 
doubt primarily to the church in Corinth, happen 
both of them to have much more general inscriptions, 
— that of the second being to ( the Church of God 
which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in 
all Achaia;' and that of the first to 'the church of 
C-od which is at Corinth, with all that in every place 
call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both 
theirs and ours/" To this criticism I reply, first, 
that if the language used in these epistles be under- 
stood as addressed to a plurality of churches dis- 
tributed over extensive regions, there may be more of 
ecclesiastical confederacy in this portion of Scripture 
than we had hoped to discover. I answer, secondly, 
that the apostle in the context speaks of the use and 
abuse of gifts evidently belonging to the Corinthian 
Christians distinctively. And I answer, thirdly, that 
Dr Wardlaw has expressly shut out his own criticism. 
He says, u The church is addressed. The pronoun 
6 ye' throughout the whole chapter has an unvarying 
reference."* This observation in regard to the fifth 
chapter is equally suitable in regard to the fourteenth. 
Speaking of the gifts in Corinth, the apostle says, 
verse 31, " Ye may all prophesy one by one." The 
subject of prophesying is carried through three suc- 
ceeding verses, and the very next exhortation is, "Let 

* Congreg. Indep., p. 236. 



CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE COUNCILS. 313 

your women keep silence in the churches." The ye 
fixes the your, and shows that Christians in Corinth 
are alone intended. 

To return, however, to the acknowledged fact, that 
there loere churches in houses not including all the be- 
lievers in a city : Surely where there was a church in 
a house there was a church besides. Surely where a 
few composed a church, the many Christians in the 
same town were not unchurched. Dr Davidson 
observes, that " Aquila had a church in his house, 
while there was a very large assembly in another part 
of the city."* But if the smaller congregation was 
a church, is it to be supposed that the larger congre- 
gation was not a church ? Fifty or a hundred were a 
church ; but many hundreds or several thousands met 
loosely without order or relation. Such a conclusion 
is utterly inadmissible. In the apostolic age, then, 
there were more than one church in one city. We 
cannot tell how many there were, but a plurality of 
churches in single cities is clearly established. In- 
deed, Dr Davidson expressly says of two companies, 
worshipping separately at Ephesus, that they were 
two sections, or rather, he adds, two churches. f 
Still he thinks, that " when Aquila resided at Ephesus, 
and had a church in his house after Paul's second 
visit, the organization of Christians in the city Avas 
not complete or final" J — that "it is hardly candid to 
argue from the perfect to the imperfect organization 
of a certain church" § — and that " it is quite improba- 

* Eccles. Pol., p. 110. f Ibid., P- 105. 

X Ibid., p. 104. I Ibid., p. 104 



314 ON THE COMMON GOVERNMENT OF 

ble these sections which existed for a time in Ephe- 
sus had their own bishops (or elders) permanently 
appointed over them."* But elsewhere he says, "We 
hold that there was a plurality of elders (or bishops) 
in each separate assembly of Christians, correctly 
designated a church." If, then, the church in Aquila's 
house wanted elders, the New Testament has called 
it a church incorrectly ; and if the word church is 
used both correctly and incorrectly in the New Tes- 
tament, how can Dr Davidson speak of the sense of 
the word as clearly determined, and how can he found 
on its consistent and well-ascertained acceptation the 
Congregational system ? 

There was a church in Aquila's house, and there 
was another large Christian assembly in Ej3hesus, 
which formed a church too; for the members of it 
met statedly ; and " the term church," says Dr David- 
son, "signifies a number of believers habitually as- 
sembling for the worship of God in one place." 
Here, then, were two churches, at least, at Ephesus ; 
and such Dr Davidson expressly admits them to have 
been. He reminds us, however, that the plural term 
churches, is not actually applied to the Ephesian be- 
lievers in the scriptural record ; and why is it not so 
applied ? " Because it was not the divine will," he 
says, "that the Christians should continue apart, being 
two or more z%%\r^iai (churches) permanently."! It 
seems, then, that there were two or more churches , 
temporarily — let the admission be noted — but they 
were not so called, lest the fact should have been 

* Eccles. Pol., p. 110. t Ibid., p. 118. 



CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE COUNCILS. 



315 



accounted a precedent ! The thing happened, but 
God was careful it should not be called what it was, 
lest the right naming of it should occasion its con- 
tinuance or repetition ! I leave the reader to esti- 
mate the value of this argument ; and for the present 
I stand on the admitted fact, that there were two or 
more churches at Ephesus. 



CHAPTER II. 

Sect. III.— Sectional Churches belonged to aggregate Churches, 
and had a common Government. 

We have seen that in certain large cities the Chris- 
tians had different places of meeting, and formed 
distinct churches. I wish to know, then, whether 
these churches had or had not a joint ecclesias- 
tical administration ? Dr Davidson is decided in 
his conviction that they ivere under one government* 
He allows that the separate companies worshipped 
as they could, which implies that their convenience 
might not in all things be identical, and that they 
needed to make a number of arrangements dis- 
tinctively. Still, " it is quite improbable/' he thinks, 
66 that these sections (or rather churches) which 
existed for a time at Ephesus, had their own 

bishops permanently appointed over them 

Each one had not a particular congregation assigned 
him, over which he alone was pastor. All were 

* Eccles. Pol., p. 121. 



316 



ON THE COMMON GOVERNMENT OF 



the pastors of the Ephesian converts." * That all 
the Christians in a town should have a company of 
teachers in common, is, in Dr Davidson's opinion, 
the golden consummation, in comparison with which 
a habitual meeting of believers in one place is of 
little consequence : " The habitual meeting together 
is not of importance, as long as the college of elders 
are considered equally the teachers and rulers of all, 
their services being distributed among the whole 
body." f Here, then, we might have, by Dr Davidson s 
showing, a scriptural church, comprising a number of 
separate congregations, the members of which do not 
meet habitually in one place ; and yet a habitual 
meeting in one place entered into the definition of a 
scriptural church at the beginning of the argument. 
But may the separate congregations have separate 
governments ? No ; Dr Davidson wholly condemns 
their separation, if they are to be dissociated and 
"self-regulated churches." They must have a common 
regulation. It is the divine will, contends Dr David- 
son, that this be the permanent system. And who, 
then, are to regulate the congregations ? The pastors 
alone ? The college of elders ? No ; the pastors 
with the people. But how are pastors and people to 
meet in such a city as London, or even Glasgow ? 
The single denomination with which I am connected 
has in Glasgow about twenty thousand members. 
What edifice could hold them all ? It must not be 
answered that the argument respects primitive times, 
when Christians were few ; for Dr Davidson speaks 

* Eccles. Pol., pp. 110, 111. t Ibid., p. 120. 



CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE COUNCILS. 317 

of God's will as to the permanent government of his 
house. What, then, will the result be at meetings of 
the general church ? Such persons will come together 
as can do so, and others must stay away. By Dr 
Davidson's own supposition, the Christians were con- 
strained by circumstances to separate for worship. 
But if circumstances would not allow them to meet 
for worship, how could it allow them to meet for 
government, even if one house could contain them ? 
Instead of all Christians in a large town meeting, a 
few of them will assemble ; and by these few the 
many will have their affairs managed, and their causes 
decided. But what sort of representation would this 
be — depending for its composition and character on 
fortuitous circumstances, or local and interested 
excitement? Dr Davidson contends that the churches 
were not subordinate to one another ; and that " ex- 
ternal control never crosses the path of a Congrega- 
tional church." * But if the affairs of a sectional 
church are controlled by a chance-gathered or vic- 
tory-seeking few, most of whom belong to other 
" sectional churches," is not this mutual subordina- 
tion ? and is not this external control of the very 
worst kind ? Since representation, even on Dr David- 
son's principles, must be had, unless he can bring 
together twenty, forty, or a hundred thousand per- 
sons into one apartment to transact ecclesiastical 
business, we think it better that the churches should 
understand who are to meet in name of the general 
church, and should have a voice in their appoint- 



* Eccles. Pol., p. 136. 



318 



ON THE COMMON GOVERNMENT OF 



ment ; should delegate " wise men able to judge 
between brethren ; " and thus obtain, not a random 
or packed gathering, but a joint representative 
government, of the truest, freest, and most impartial 
description; 



CHAPTER III. 

Duties have been assigned to the churches which they cannot 
perform in a state of isolation and independency. 

I here take for granted that when certain means are 
indispensable to a certain end, the appointment of the 
end is equivalent to the appointment of the means. 
If work has been devolved on churches which is im- 
practicable for them singly, then an association of 
churches to all the extent needed for that work has 
all the imperativeness of divine requirement. 

As examples, I notice the duties of securing a quali- 
fied ministry, of guarding the purity of the churches, 
and of extending the gospel. 

Sect. I. — Churches are required to secure a qualified ministry. 

It is true that Scripture often addresses its appeals 
to pastors themselves, and to those who aspire after 
the pastoral office. But the responsibility of securing 
competent teachers has not been devolved exclusively 
on those who have to deliver instruction. Christians 



CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE COUNCILS. 319 

and Christian societies are enjoined to take heed 
what they hear. They are forbidden to believe every 
spirit, and commanded to try the spirits whether they 
be of G od. We find a church commended for having 
proved them who said they were apostles and were 
not, and for having found them to be liars. In the 
first age of the gospel, churches had extraordinary aids 
in testing the competency of pretended instructors. 
Apostles had the signs of apostles, without which any 
alleged apostleship was to be accounted spurious. 
Among the gifts then conferred was the power of 
discerning spirits ; and while we have limited infor- 
mation as to the manner in which this endowment 
was exercised, no one will assert that it was never 
employed in ascertaining the competency or incom- 
petency of spiritual functionaries. 

On such grounds it will be universally conceded, I 
think, that churches are bound to do what in them 
lies to secure qualified teachers ; and that where ex- 
traordinary aids, once enjoyed in fulfilling the obli- 
gation, have been withdrawn, there is the more need 
to take advantage of all available facilities. That 
isolated churches could judge well enough regarding 
some constituents of ministerial proficiency, I am far 
from denying. But who can read any faithful de- 
scription of the qualifications indispensable to a scribe 
well instructed unto the kingdom of heaven, and say 
that unlettered associations of Christians may deter- 
mine respecting all of them whether they be or be 
not possessed ? If a minister make comments on the 
English translation of the Hebrew or Greek Scrip- 



320 



ON THE COMMON GOVERNMENT OF 



tures, can a congregation of peasants form an enlight- 
ened opinion whether these comments be jnst or unjust, 
erudite or ridiculous ? 

It is true that Congregationalists have their col- 
leges, but no one church can have its college ; and 
where Christians of many churches found, regulate, 
and support the same seminary, the principle of asso- 
ciation I am contending for is so far exemplified. 
There is here a practical avowal that young men must 
be trained for the ministry, and that as each church 
cannot maintain its own theological seminary, there 
must be one such institution owned and patronised 
by many Christian societies. The teaching of the 
students, with the ultimate retention or expulsion of 
them, must be managed by some individual, or class 
of individuals, for the churches ; and to all this extent 
the churches are represented in the performance of 
varied services most important to their interests. The 
Congregational Union of England and Wales tell us, 
in their declaration of the faith, church order, and 
discipline of the Congregational or Independent Dis- 
senters, that " Christian churches unitedly ought to 
consider the maintenance of the ministry in an ade- 
quate degree of learning as one of its especial cares." 
Here, then, churches must act unitedly, and the work 
is " its" not theirs — one, and not many — in relation 
to this object. This work, in not being avowedly 
and regularly accomplished by a joint government of 
churches, is to that extent defective and faulty. Dif- 
ferent academical institutions, in the absence of such 
control, are liable to teach very conflicting doctrines. 



CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE COUNCILS. 321 

When abuses are admitted into these schools of learn- 
ing, the churches have a difficulty in ascertaining the 
nature and amount of the evil, and a still greater dif- 
ficulty in applying a remedy. But the grand objec- 
tion to institutions so placed is. that attendance on 
them is not imperative, and may be avoided by all 
candidates for the ministry who dislike diligent study. 
Independent churches can choose ministers of any 
or no attainments. And so long as any man may 
preach, and any church may call the preacher, the 
standard of ministerial competency in a religious deno- 
mination can never be equally or vigorously upheld. 
Some ministers will be well taught, others will be 
teaching before they have begun to learn. In the 
same neighbourhood the able and accomplished pastor 
will have ignorant and upstart brethren, with whose 
mental habits he can have little sympathy, and on 
whose decent appearance in any joint enterprise he is 
afraid to stake his personal honour, and the good name 
of his religious connection. I know how many ex- 
ceptions to these statements could easily be produced. 
But I appeal to good information and Christian can- 
dour, whether they do not hold extensively true, and 
whether their degree of truth do not commend a joint 
government of churches for the due regulation of 
theological instruction. 



X 



322 



ON THE COMMON GOVERNMENT OF 



CHAPTER III. 
Sect. II.— Churches are required to guard their purity. 

Independents not only concede this position, but 
contend for it resolutely. They think that their sys- 
tem affords peculiar advantages for the maintenance of 
discipline. But a little reflection will show that the 
efficiency of Congregationalism in upholding a spiri- 
tual order has most serious exceptions. Suppose that 
a minister is the suspected party, and that he repels 
all surmises against his innocence, the ruled must 
then sit in judgment upon the ruler ! This is surely 
an inversion of natural propriety and obvious seem- 
liness. But, apart from any question of decorum, 
what security can there be in such a case for the 
administration of justice ? A minister must have dis- 
charged his duties with little acceptance indeed, if 
he has not acquired considerable influence over his 
people ; and how shall this same people divest them- 
selves at once of all their deferential leanings and 
habitudes, so as to judge impartially and indepen- 
dently of his conduct? The rules commonly laid 
down by Independent writers for the management of 
ecclesiastical business by churches, are sadly unsuited 
to such a case. We are told by Dr Davidson that 
ministers "preside in all meetings of the church/' Is 
a minister to preside when he is himself under trial ? 
It is the doctrine of Dr Davidson that in " meetings of 
the church no member shall speak without permis- 
sion of the elders, nor continue to do so when they 



CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE COUNCILS. 323 

impose silence." If an elder (pastor) is impeached 
before his flock, and an attempt is made to convict 
him of crime, may he permit speech or impose 
silence, as the testimony of the witnesses is for or 
against him ? Our Congregationalist brethren allow 
that every church should have a plurality of elders. 
Suppose that a church has two such office-bearers, 
who mutually inculpate each other, is the church a 
fitting tribunal to judge between them ? Is it not 
inevitable that two such influential persons will each 
have his party ; or is not the tendency to this result 
so strong as at least to destroy all likelihood of un- 
biassed deliberation ? Congregationalists seem to be 
sensible of this difficulty in their system, for they 
usually treat of discipline only in relation to private 
members of the church, and not at all in relation to 
ministers — as if a pastor, like the Pope, were infal- 
lible ; or, like the Sovereign of England, could do 
no wrong. 

These remarks apply even to the government of a 
church in its own affairs, and in the maintenance of 
its own purity. But churches are under the necessity 
of exercising more than self-inspection, and of con- 
sidering their alliances — of seeing to the character of 
other churches with whom they hold fellowship. 
Suppose that some church is ill-reported of. Every 
individual Christian cannot seek and obtain personal 
satisfaction in regard to these rumours. Even the 
churches cannot do so singly and separately, or the 
suspected brotherhood would have nothing else to do 
than to answer interrogatories. The case must be 



324 ON THE COMMON GOVERNMENT OF 



examined into by a limited number, and others must 
act on their report. That report may be very unfa- 
vourable, and may infer such doctrinal error, or moral 
delinquency, as to induce a severance of all commu- 
nion. Presbytery employs much the same means, 
and never extends its jurisdiction beyond reaching 
the same end. For we hold with the Congregational 
Union, that " no church, nor union of churches, has 
any right or power to interfere with the faith or 
discipline of any other church, further than to sepa- 
rate from such as in faith or practice depart from the 
gospel of Christ." This is the ultimatum with 
Presbyterians as well as Independents. There are 
differences, no doubt, between the cases ; but whether 
it be owing to the force of truth or prejudice, they 
seem to us to be greatly in favour of Presbytery. 
Under the Presbyterian system, the arbiters have 
been formed into a deliberative assembly, quite 
independently of any particular case, and cannot be 
suspected of coming into office in order to oblige a 
friend or serve a purpose. Where the members of a 
Congregational church cannot settle a dispute among 
themselves, and wish to refer their differences to 
others, not of their society, the channel of reference 
is not fixed and marked ; and hence, of late years, 
we have seen appeals made in the same case to one 
set of arbiters after another, with exceedingly differ- 
ent and incongruous results; and sometimes the 
churches of one denomination have applied to minis- 
ters or members of other denominations, in order 
to secure an impartial mediation. They may be 



CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE COUNCILS. 325 



excellent people among whom these things happen ; 
in many instances they are undoubtedly 4 6 the salt of 
the earth/' and u the lights of the world." I remark 
on the facts in no spirit of fault-finding, but simply 
to suggest that these untoward casualties are un- 
avoidable where churches have a reciprocal obligation, 
and yet refuse to fulfil it systematically. Perhaps 
there might be improvements among our Congrega- 
tional friends short of a change of polity, and we 
would have cause to rejoice over these ameliorations. 
If Independency is to remain substantially what it 
is, would it not derive benefit from moulding into a 
system its present actings, — appointing, for example, 
the pastors and deacons of a certain district the 
stated referees in that district, and then no suspicion 
could arise of packing a jury, in order to govern a 
verdict ? 

I know that some Independent churches have 
adopted such arrangements. The church at Torquay, 
presided over by Mr Hurry, a young Independent 
pastor of great excellence and promise, adopted the 
following resolution : — " That in the confidence that 
many unhappy disputes which have occasioned dis- 
tress in other churches might have been altogether 
prevented, or their evil consequences greatly miti- 
gated, if there had existed some method of seeking 
advice from wise and dispassionate Christian by- 
standers, yet without compromising the integrity 
and independence of the churches as under the 
alone authority of the Lord Jesus Christ, this church 
agrees that if any question should arise likely to 



326 ON THE COMMON GOVERNMENT OF 

involve strong difference of opinion, whether between 
the pastor and the members, or between the members 
themselves, no vote shall be taken thereon until the 
case has been fairly and impartially laid before the 
pastors and delegates of the Totness Division of the 
South Devon Congregational Union, and their opinion 
and advice thereon obtained. It being distinctly 
understood that the ultimate consideration of, and 
decision upon, the question or questions shall be 
reserved to this church, without pledging itself to 
give more than due and respectful consideration to 
the opinion and advice so obtained. It is hereby 
further agreed, that such opinion and advice shall 
be sought whenever, and only when at least one- 
fourth part of the whole of the adult members of the 
church shall consider it desirable, on their giving an 
undertaking to defray the expense thereby incurred, 
unless in the opinion of the parties applied to for 
advice such expense ought to be defrayed out of the 
church fund." 

Here the selection of arbiters or referees is not 
left indeterminate. Questions likely to involve dif- 
ferences of opinion are to be laid before the pastors 
and delegates of the Totness Division of the South 
Devon Congregational Union. Why might not others, 
why not all Congregational churches follow a like 
course? Dr Davidson thinks that the step is too 
much in the direction of Presbytery. I cannot per- 
ceive, if references are to be made to Christian coun- 
sellors of other churches, why the communication 
should not be conducted in the least suspicious and 



CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE COUNCILS. 327 

most orderly manner. But if the simple fact of 
selecting advisers, irrespectively of any question at 
issue, would render the selection too Presbyterate, 
then it may be reasonable to doubt whether the joint 
and reciprocal duties of churches can be executed in 
a regular and efficient manner without assuming 
more or less a Presbyterian economy. The Inde- 
pendents of olden times were not so tremulous 
about the safety of their principles, as to forbid the 
associated and systematic action of churches in the 
maintenance of their common purity. " No church," 
says Dr Owen, " is infallible in their judgment abso- 
lutely in any case ; and in many, their determina- 
tions may be so doubtful as not to affect the con- 
science of him who is censured. But such a person 
is not only a member of that particular church, but 
by virtue thereof, of the catholic church also. It is 
necessary, therefore, that he should be heard and 
judged as unto his interest therein, if he do desire it. 
And this can no ivay be done but by such synods as 
we shall immediately describe." * In the same 
treatise he says, "If it be reported or known by 
credible testimony, that any church hath admitted 
into the exercise of divine worship anything super- 
stitious or vain, or, if the members of it walk like 
those described by the apostle, Philip, iii. 18, 19, 
unto the dishonour of the gospel and of the ways of 
Christ, the church itself not endeavouring its own 
reformation and repentance, other churches, walking 
in communion therewith, by virtue of their common 

* Treatise on the Gospel Church, p. 414. 



328 ON THE COMMON GOVERNMENT OF 

interest in the glory of Christ, and honour of the 
gospel, after more private ways for its reduction, as 
opportunity and duty may suggest unto their elders, 
ought to assemble in a synod for advice, either as to 
the use of farther means for the recovery of such a 
church, or to withhold communion from it in case of 
obstinacy in its evil ways/' The Independents of 
the Westminster Assembly characterise synods as 
" an holy ordinance of God/' and declare " that all 
the churches in a province being offended at a par- 
ticular congregation, may call that single congrega- 
tion to account ; yea, all the churches in a nation may 
call one or more congregations to an account — that 
they may examine and admonish, and, in case of 
obstinacy, declare them to be subverters of the faith 
— that synods are of use to give advice to the ma- 
gistrate in matters of religion — that they have au- 
thority to determine concerning controversies of faith 
— that their determinations are to be received with 
great honour and conscientious respect and obliga- 
tion as from Christ — that, if an offending congregation 
refuse to submit to their determinations, they may 
withdraw from them, and deny church communion 
and fellowship with them." * 

* The Presbyterians urged these admissions of Independent 
brethren as made by them " in their disputes and otherwise," 
and as " sufficient to warrant not only the lawfulness of the 
use of synods, but also of the standing use of theni." See 
" Reasons presented by the Dissenting Brethren, 1 ' &c. Lon- 
don, 1648, p. 138. When this book was reissued in 1652, it 
got another title, " The Grand Debate concerning Presbytery 
and Independency by the Assembly of Divines, &c. By order 
of Parliament, 1652." 



CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE COUNCILS. 329 

The Sub-Committee of Agreements, composed of 
Presbyterians and Independents, and expressly ap- 
pointed to take into consideration their differences of 
opinion, and to endeavour a union if possible, were 
unanimous in recommending this article : " For the 
associating of churches, let there be in every county 
of this kingdom a certain number of select godly and 
able ministers of the Word within that county, to 
hear and determine the causes and differences in 
every congregation within the same ; and let there 
be a certain number of select church governors 
(ruling elders) assistant unto them." * 



CHAPTER III. 

Sect. III. — Churches are charged with the duty of extending 
the Gospel. 

ConcreGtATIONAlists are eager to show that the 
independence of churches does not infer their dis- 
severance, and that while each is self-governed and 
complete within itself, they may be in various ways 
associated, so as to exemplify Christian union under 
its fairest aspects. In support of this proposition, 
they refer us commonly to joint missionary enter- 
prise. But I have always regarded this instance as 
a testimony to opposite views. The institution of 

* Papers for Accommodation, 1644, by a Sub-Committee of 
Divines of the Assembly and Dissenting Brethren. London, 
1648. 



330 ON THE COMMON GOVERNMENT OF 

general missionary societies somewhat veils the in- 
aptitude of the Independent polity for great beneficent 
undertakings, and allows the adoption of Presby- 
terian principles, while the nomenclature of Pres- 
byterians is steadfastly repudiated. But the true 
state of the facts is at once apparent when we sup- 
pose churches in their ecclesiastical capacity to put 
forth their energies for the conversion of the heathen. 
Is each church to deliberate and vote on the selection 
of the field ; on the choice of the agent ; on the 
settlement of disputes between missionaries and co- 
lonists, or among missionaries themselves ? It be- 
comes immediately evident, when the case is so 
presented, that each church cannot act under the 
given circumstances in its collective capacity ; that 
if churches, as churches, are to accomplish any such 
work, they must have recourse to the appointment 
of representatives. Dr Wardlaw sees and avows 
this consequence. He says, " In regard to such 
union and co-operation as this, there is no occasion 
why the most rigid and uncompromising Indepen- 
dent should startle even at the word delegation itself. 
.... The evil to which Congregationalism is op- 
posed is not delegation, but authoritative delegation. 
If the delegation relates to objects that are altogether 
unconnected with the government of the churches 
— involving no interference with their respective ad- 
mission of members, exercise of discipline, or in 
general the conduct of their own affairs, whether 
spiritual or temporal — if it regards only the prose- 
cution of such common ends as the local or more 



CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE COUNCILS. 331 

extensive, the home or the foreign propagation of the 
gospel, .... we are not sensible of the slightest 
infringement, by such delegated combination, of any 
one principle of the strictest Independency." * 

There is here a clear and explicit approval of dele- 
gated combination for the extension of the gospel ; 
but the saving clauses by which Independent con- 
sistency is to be preserved I do not understand. 
What could a board of missionary directors do if they 
had not "authoritative delegation?" Evangelising 
operations would proceed slowly if they rested in the 
state of suggestion or proposal. And how is " dis- 
cipline" to be avoided if a missionary acts improperly, 
and has to be called to account for his disorderly 
conduct ? The directors will then demand explana- 
tions and confessions, and inflict censures ; and if the 
offence be grave or be repeated, they will debate 
and decide the question, whether the offending agent 
should be stripped of his stewardship and dismissed 
from their service. Is this not discipline? What 
course more authoritative or disciplinarian could any 
presbytery or synod pursue in exercising superinten- 
dence over any of its members ? 

I wish that the advocates of Independency would 
descend from general terms, and stoop to specifica- 
tion and details, by which they could show us that 
Presbyterian missions and Independent missions differ 
essentially in their mode of administration. Let them 
show us that the Synod of the United Presbyterian 
Church wields a more arbitrary power in conducting 

* Congreg. Indep., p. 369. 



332 



ON THE COMMON GOVERNMENT OF 



its missions than the Committee of any Congrega- 
tionalist society contemplating the same objects, and 
then we may begin to suspect that Presbyterian 
government is conventional and imperious ; but till 
then, we must be allowed to consider Presbytery the 
simplest form of energetic action, and always least 
objectionable where it is most frankly and unequivo- 
cally espoused. 

I acknowledge that in the guidance of home mis- 
sions the Congregationalist body has been jealous of 
centralization, and that the Congregational Union of 
England and "Wales has sedulously avoided the very 
appearance of an exercise of power. And what is 
the result ? I am only giving utterance to the senti- 
ments of some eminent Independents when I answer, 
inefficiency. At the meetings of the Union held at 
Northampton in October, 1851, the Eev. Mr Bennett, 
as reported in the British Banner, October 22, said : 
" To my mind v the Congregational Union has been a 
do-nothing body. I was much struck with an ob- 
servation which fell from the lips of Dr Campbell, 
when he said that you must have done with mere 

resolutions How do we stand as a body? 

Is the number of Independent churches much greater 
than it was 150 years ago ? I have turned my atten- 
tion to this subject of late, and I find that the county 
in which we are now, which has 304 parishes, con- 
tained, one hundred years ago, twenty-four Indepen- 
dent churches. Well, what is the number now? 
Only twenty-eight,— four churches in a hundred 
years. How comes that to pass ? In Somerset and 



CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE COUNCILS. 333 

Devon — counties with which I am pretty well ac- 
quainted — I vouch for it, our position is not more 
favourable. There must be something wrong some- 
where, or else it would not be so. By this time, 
Congregationalism ought to have diffused its leaven 
throughout the whole country. The reason of this 
stagnation I believe to be a want of united effort. 
We have got a certain phantom among us, — a kind 
of 'familiar;' an idle dread of centralization. You 
cannot propose an efficient plan or scheme of any 
kind ; you cannot refer to anything that goes beyond 
mere talking, and put your foot on the region of doing, 
but you hear exclamations on all sides of 6 You are 
acting contrary to your principles/ Why should it 
be so ? Let me advise you to have a bona fide repre- 
sentation in this Union, — a delegate that somebody 
delegates, — one that comes with credentials from 
those by whom he is sent ; and let those who send 
such delegates say, whatever the majority of the 
Union agrees should be done, we pledge ourselves to 
do. I may not be in order, but I am saying what I 
think and believe. I have made these remarks 
because I feel that the subject is important. Let us 
get out of our present dead condition. Let us have 
some doing as well as talking. I believe it is right 
to spread our principles, whatever may be said about 
centralization. We may say, in the language sup- 
posed to have been uttered by a fallen angel, whose 
spirit, however, we need not imitate, — 

* To be weak is miserable, 
Doing or suffering. ' 



334 



ON THE COMMON GOVERNMENT OF 



Some most excellent things may come into the world 
without parents, perhaps ; but depend upon it the 
Congregational body will never be strong without 
unity of action." Afterwards, Mr Bennett sent an 
able letter to the Banner, more deliberately and 
amply expounding his views. In that letter the 
following passages occur : "I should rejoice and 
triumph in a bona fide Congregational Union, — in a 
Union that should include every one of our churches, 
concentrating and directing all their energies, — in a 
Union that should be like a great heart in the midst 
of us, sending forth streams of healthful and invigor- 
ating influence through our whole body to the ex- 
tremities of the land. The Congregational Union, 
as it exists at present, is not such a body ; and in 
order that it may become so, or even approximate 
thereunto, two things are, I think, absolutely essential. 
First : the Union must consist of a genuine and bona 
fide delegation. The men who come to it to take a 
part in its deliberations and votes, must come not 
because it is pleasant to themselves, and a source of 
personal gratification to themselves, but they must 

come because they are sent I repeat, 

therefore, that a genuine delegation is essential to an 
effective Congregational Union. A second thing 
which appears to me is essential is, that the men 
who are thus sent should bring from the churches by 
whom they are sent a distinct and positive pledge, 
that with reference to certain specified public objects 
these churches will hold themselves bound to support, 
to the utmost of their power, by a strenuous practical 



CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE COUNCILS. 



335 



co-operation, such courses of action as the Congre- 
gational Union, by its deliberations and resolutions, 

may advise or appoint 

" What the specified objects should be, for the sup- 
port of which the churches in connection with the 
Cougregational Union should be required to pledge 
themselves, it is not at all difficult to determine; they 
are already embraced in the field of action which the 
Union has prescribed for itself. I will mention but 
two, which, if they were worked and supported, not 
as they are, but as they ought to be, would be the 
glory of our denomination, would render the Union 
worthy of all honour, and all support, and give it a 
name and a place among the noblest institutions of 
the land. 

" The first is the Colonial Missionary Society, 
the object of which is, in every respect, grand and 

imposing But in my judgment, the true 

vocation of the Congregational Union is essentially 
a home vocation. Its grand field of operation is our 
fatherland. It should be one vast Home Missionary 
Society 

" Now, sir, suppose the Union had for this great 
object an income of twenty-five or thirty thousand 
pounds a-year. So applied, what great and cheering 
results may reasonably be expected ! And why should 
it not have such an income? What prevents it? 
Simply the want of a bona fide Congregational Union. 
That, and nothing else! Were all our churches really 
united — were each church to say by its delegate, 
< We feel the importance of this great object, and we 



336 



ON THE COMMON GOVERNMENT OF 



pledge ourselves to the utmost of our power to sup- 
port your plans ; if you appoint that on a certain day 
a collection shall be made, we pledge ourselves to 
make it, whatever the proceeds may be;' why, then, 
the resources of the home missionary work would 
increase fourfold, and much more ; and I ask, what 
danger to the future liberty of the churches could 
such pledges as these involve ? The notion of such 
danger is, in my opinion, not only untenable, but 
absolutely foolish and ridiculous. I do not say that 
there are not other things for which the Congrega- 
tional Union would be a suitable and important 
medium. I believe there are. As a great and 
dignified organ for the expression of the opinions of 
the body, in important and social political crises, I 
think its instrumentality may be made very powerful ; 
and again, when circumstances and public events may 
seem to demand it, I think fraternal counsel issuing 
from the Union in the form of circulars, to be read in 
the churches connected with it, may make it a source 
of most healthful influences to those churches. But 
if the churches in the Connection were pledged to the 
above objects only, it would give a new aspect to the 
Union, and a vastly accelerated amount of usefulness 
to the whole body. 

"And what prevents a consummation so desirable ? 
Isolation : that is the name of the evil genius of our 
system! That is the torpedo which benumbs our 
energies, and paralyses the very sinews of combined 
effort! We have seen many forms of ecclesiastical 
despotism — Popish depotism, Episcopal-Protestant 



CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE COUNCILS. 337 

despotism, Wesley an-Conf ere nee despotism — and we 
have pondered these things until we have brought 
ourselves almost to believe, that a hundred of our 
brethren cannot unite for any purpose of concentrated 
action, without concocting some plot against our 
spiritual liberties ! We have stereotyped a law of 
jealousy, and tried to regard it as holy! We have 
crowned and almost worshipped a phantom, which is 
powerful only to paralyse ! whose cold shadow freezes 
the very heart of action ! a coward spirit, that, 
wherever it turns its face, 

1 Back recoils, it knows not why, 
E'en at the sound itself has made ! 1 

Our numbers, our wealth, our intelligence, and piety, 
are shorn of much of that influence which they ought 
to exercise in this land, because we believe in the 
virtue of dislocation ! 

" If this evil is, indeed, ineradicable among us — if 
it is an incurable fatality — if the centrifugal force must 
be the master force of our system — why, then, let us 
give up the habit of talking about what we cannot do. 
Let us not pretend to form combinations for which 
we have an inherent incapacity, and let us also give 
up the fond hope that our denominational principles 
will in future ever make any great progress in this 
land ! Even then we shall have a work to do, and 
not an unimportant one. Congregational Noncon- 
formity will still be in years to come what it has 
been in years past — an embodied protest against the 
encroachments of human authority on that sacred 
territory where the Lord Christ alone is King ; and 

Y 



338 ON THE COMMON GOVERNMENT OF 

this is no mean vocation ; but I think we may do 
this and much more, and I fear, if we content our- 
selves with this, our Master and Lord will one day- 
say to us, 6 This ought ye to have done, and not to 
have left the other undone/ " 

The importance of these citations is my apology for 
their length. Mr Bennett recommends that churches 
should act energetically when promoting in common 
their common objects, and to such action he regards 
systematic delegation as absolutely indispensable. 
The appointments and the powers he demands for the 
delegates or representatives are, I think, both neces- 
sary and sufficient. Some may object to Mr Bennett 
as an authority, seeing he had withdrawn from the 
Congregational Union, and thus evinced a difference 
of opinion from the generality of its members. I by 
no means wish to exhibit him as an exponent of the 
principles of the Union. That he was very far, 
however, from being singular in his views, and that 
some avowing opposite convictions were still partly 
on his side, abundantly appeared from speeches and 
correspondence connected with the same interesting 
occasion. The Eev. George Nicholson, in an excel- 
lent communication to the Banner, of date October 31, 
said : " Those who were present on the occasion 
referred to, will remember that I neither denied the 
facts stated by my friend, Mr Bennett, nor ridiculed 
the importance attached to them. On the contrary, 
I expressed my satisfaction that they had been so 
courageously brought forward, and so attentively 
listened to, and hoped that they would receive the 



CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE COUNCILS. 



339 



careful and earnest consideration which they appeared 

to me to deserve I am heartily glad that 

you have so fully reported my friend's able speech, 
and I doubt not it will, in one way at least, do good 
service to the churches, by opening their eyes to facts 
which are as instructive as they are humiliating." 
The Rev. W. F. Buck says, in a letter to the Banner, 
dated October 25, 1851, " Some plead for a system of 
isolated Independency, very different from the Con- 
gregationalism of Dr Owen, and having no warrant, 
as I consider, from the sacred Scriptures, our great 
statute-book. Little in the way of aggression can be 
justly calculated on without both union and organi- 
zation. 

" I by no means coincide with the representation 
made at the late meeting of the Union, by the Eev. 
Mr Bennett, that up to the present time nothing has 
been effected. Considering the comparatively few 
years it has been in existence, and the impediments 
it has had to contend with, I think it has not only 
done much, but also much that is valuable. The 
recommendation of that gentleman, in reference to 
its government, I believe to be worthy of the most 
mature deliberation, unless a great division of opinion 
is likely to arise from its introduction." 

But the most important circumstance connected 
with Mr Bennett's speech and letter is found in the 
commendation given them by the editor of the 
Banner, one of the most vigorous and indefatigable 
writers of the present day. He prefaces Mr Bennett's 
letter with the following remarks : " The lovers of 



340 



ON THE COMMON GOVERNMENT OF 



concord, the real and enlightened friends of Inde- 
pendency, will read with the deepest interest the 
communications we publish to-day on that subject. 
They will take the luminous, the masterly, and 
every way admirable letter of Mr Bennett as his 
premeditated speech — his deliberate opinion. That 
letter gives us more satisfaction than we can well 
express. We could wish for it a thoughtful perusal 
by every minister, by every deacon, and by every 
enlightened member of the Independent body, 
in these realms. There is not in it one word we 
could desire to see altered, or which, by altering, 
could be improved. Had we begirded ourselves for 
the preparation of a similar manifesto, we do not 
think we could more correctly, clearly, or forcibly 
have embodied our own views, opinions, and aspira- 
tions. Our readers may, therefore, if they choose, 
accept them either as Mr Bennett's or our own. So 
far as he has gone, he completely meets our deliberate, 
long-entertained, and thoroughly-digested notions on 
the subject of organization. It is true, indeed, that 
we would add a few points, and carry some matters 
further ; but to the extent of its deliverance, we 
entirely concur with him." If some say that such 
observations are compatible with Congregationalism, 
and that to approve of them is to become a Congre- 
gationalist, I have only to reply — Be it so. Let 
churches have joint action worthy of the name, and 
I care little what it be called. When the sentiments 
I have quoted, which are none other than those of 
Independents generally in former times, shall be 



CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE COUNCILS. 341 



adopted and avowed by the greater part of Inde- 
pendents of our own day, I shall not be so desirous 
to show where we differ, as to show that our 
differences are immaterial, and that the season has 
come for united conferences, with a view to associated 
exertion, in order that errors which we all condemn 
may be arrested, that truths we all esteem may 
be advanced, and that the cherished distinctions 
and trophies of warring sects may wax old, and 
vanish away amid the brightening glory of the one 
church of the living God. 

Since the preceding remarks were written, I have 
had my attention called by a much-esteemed friend * 
to a very interesting publication, " The Congrega- 
tional Year-Book for 1853." It is most gratifying 
to read the accounts there given of the London 
Congregational Church Building Society, and of 
Chapel Extension in Lancashire. Most fervently do 
I wish these, and all like operations, God speed. 
From the report of the proceedings of the Con- 
gregational Union for 1852, I rejoice to perceive 
that the constitution of the Union has undergone 
amendments, which are likely to be productive of 
excellent results. Such organization is in progress 
as seems fitted, by the divine blessing, to induce 
vigorous action and immense usefulness. 

* W. P. Paton, Esq. of Glasgow. 



CONCLUSION. 



In bringing this Treatise to a conclusion, I desire to 
impress the friends of Presbytery with the convic- 
tion, that they will best secure approval for their 
Presbyterian polity by recommending it in practice. 
Let the excellence of the tree appear in the grace- 
fulness of its * proportions, the freshness of its vege- 
tation, and above all, in the abundance and salubrity 
of its fruit. Already Presbytery has undergone, in 
several features, great improvements in Scotland. 
That it should be immediately perfected by the Ee- 
formers, when they had just emerged from a corrupt 
and persecuting church, was more than could be ex- 
pected. In leaving Eome, they brought with them 
some of its intolerance, which they embodied in their 
new system of ecclesiastical polity. Mr Lawson has 
little difficulty in proving that " the Presbyterians 
of Scotland" were chargeable with " tyrannical pro- 
ceedings/' especially in " trying and punishing cases 
of scandal, at the end of the sixteenth century." 
I have now before me scroll minutes of the Inverness 
Presbytery, * recording the proceedings of that 

* These scroll minutes have been kindly sent me by my 
esteemed friend, the Rev. John Grant of Roseneath. He says 
of them : " It would seem that they remained in the family 
of the Clerk. The book came into the hands of an auctioneer 
in Inverness about a year before the Disruption, and he gave 
it to me, having made out of the old writing so much as to 
know that it had something to do with Presbytery." 



CONCLUSION. 



343 



court through a number of years, beginning with 
1632, and showing, amid the changes of church 
government, little relaxation of penal discipline in 
the first half of the seventeenth century. We have 
there, on the 22d August 1633, Mr Lachlan Grant, 
a member of Presbytery, " accusit for his lang ab- 
sence, nowe thre dayes togidder. He anserit for the 
first daye he was seik of ane cauld, and culd nocht 
be hard speik ; . . . . for the secund, that he was 
with the bischop, meaning yat yai war threatting to 
demeiss him of the gleb of Dalarassie ; . . . . and 
for the third daye, (when) ye exereeis was don or he 
cam in, answerit that he had evill weather/' These 
apologies seem to be tolerably good. Yet, when Mr 
Grant "was removit," the Presbytery "decernit 
him to pay £xx mo ie ." In another minute, I see 
Donald Makanes ordained to make repentance in his 
own kirk three successive Sabbaths, at the foot of 
the stool of repentance, and to pay a penalty of £20, 
for cutting his neighbour's kail, and breaking his 
dyke. Examples of the same sort of " dealing " 
abound in these records. We have a contrast to 
them presented in the declaration of the church 
with which I am connected, that " the word 
' court,' " as used in its Eules, &c, " simply denotes 
ministers and elders regularly met for the discharge 
of their deliberative duties, in session, presbytery, 
or synod ; and that it conveys no idea of authority 
beyond that of spiritual administration." 

There is still, however, room for amendment ; and 
without dreading the advantage that may be taken 



344 



CONCLUSION. 



of a confessional strain of remark, I shall specify, in 
a few particulars, where improvement in the working 
out of Presbyterian government seems to me to be 
demanded : — 

1. There should be less jealousy than is some- 
times manifested of unofficial Christian beneficence. 
I hold, and I have endeavoured to prove, the divine 
appointment of the eldership. But since we find 
that wise men, not formally invested with office, 
were, by apostolic direction, set to judge on questions 
deeply affecting the honour of the church, we 
should be slow to reject the aid of such wisdom, 
even in ecclesiastical proceedings, where it is still 
available for like service. An official agency is valu- 
able, not only for what it can do itself, but as bring- 
ing into action all the graces and resources of the 
church ; and a punctilious dread of compromising 
our official status in permitting others to work with 
us, and hailing their co-operation, is not sanctioned, 
as I think by the facts, the precepts, or the spirit of 
the New Testament. 

2. We should do more than is now done to elevate 
the qualifications and efficiency of the Billing as dis- 
tinguished from the Teaching Eldership. That 
Scripture makes such a distinction among presbyters 
has, I trust, been sufficiently proved. But the dis- 
tinction has been too often widened into a chasm. 
Variety within a species has been enlarged into a 
specific difference. On this practical error both 
Episcopalians and Independents have reared their 
most formidable engines of assault against our Ses- 



CONCLUSION. 



345 



sional system. They have asked why the apostles 
so generally speak of presbyters as one institution, 
if the teaching and ruling presbyters were then as 
wide apart as are ministers and elders in our own 
day. They have inquired what we gain by contend- 
ing for Presbyterian ordination, and then excluding 
the great majority of presbyters from the privilege 
of ordaining.* 

Our present usage admits of some reply to such 
strictures. If the writers of the New Testament 
often speak of presbyters collectively, and as one 
body, we also speak of the members of presbyteries 
or synods without distinguishing the ruling and 
teaching elders of whom the court is composed. 

It is true, also, that the having or wanting a col- 

* On this subject, Dr Onderdonk says, " We have consulted 
Buck's Dictionary, and find that in the Church of Scotland, 
the pastoral are distinguished from the ruling elders in two 
particulars : they only lay on hands in ordaining pastors ; and 
the presiding officer of the presbytery is chosen from among 
them. We have made inquiries also concerning the practice in 
Presbyterian ordinations in this country, and learn that the 
ruling elders do not impose hands with the pastors— though 

the opinion is not unsupported that they ought to do so 

The General Assembly declares that ordination is to be ' with 
the laying on of the hands of the presbytery, according to the 
apostolic example;' it declares the 'presbytery,' the only one 
it defines, to include ruling elders ; these, therefore, to conform 
to * the apostolic example,' ought to lay on hands, but they do 
not ; therefore, by its own showing, the ordinations in the 
communion of the General Assembly, are not 'according to 
the apostolic example.'" — {Episcopacy Tested by Scripture, pp. 
76, 77.) In 1851, March 11, the Presbytery of which I am a 
minister entered on the remit from the Synod in relation to 
the participation of Ruling Elders in the imposition of hands 



346 



CONCLUSION. 



legiate education makes more difference now than 
could have originally subsisted. But still the one term, 
" bishop," so often applied to elders, whether they 
ruled or taught, and without any mark of discrimina- 
tion, shows that they were more upon the same sort 
of footing in the primitive church than in the present 
working of Presbytery. At their meetings for pub- 
lic worship, all the elders occupied one bench or 
platform, facing the people, to indicate the sameness 
of their order ; and he who was to preach took his 
place with them, and delivered his message from 
amid his brethren.* 

I do not say this practice should be resumed, 
though I would not object to its restoration ; but I 
do say there should be more of the parity of which 
it gave evidence. If not in their seats, at least in 
their services, the elders should be in view of the 
people, and valued as the pastors with whom they 
co-operate. "We need not expect to reach an end so 

at the ordination of ministers : " After long and friendly dis- 
cussion, it was moved and agreed that the best mode of com- 
posing differences on this subject, would be that of appointing 
the moderator, in every case of ministerial ordination, to im- 
pose hands in the name of the Presbytery." The London 
ministers, in their Divine Right of Church Government, re- 
garded this mode of ordination with favour. "Paul with the 
presbytery," they say, " ordained Timothy with imposition 
of hands ; it ma^ be of Paul's hands in name of the whole 
presbytery." In the margin they support this view by Cal- 
vin's authority : " As Calvin judgeth in Comment, ad 2 Tim. 
i. 6."— (Jus Divinum, $c, Appendix, p. 268. London, 1647.) 

* Some Episcopalians, who substantially admit this fact, at- 
tempt to uphold the superiority of bishops, by alleging that 
the preaching elder was the bishop, emphatically so called, and 



CONCLUSION. 



347 



important without the use of reasonable means, and 
surely more pains might be taken to qualify elders 
for ruling well. Laudable zeal has been shown to 
institute ministers' libraries. Is there no need for 
elders' libraries ? And might there not be more 
frequent meetings with them and addresses to them, 
and improving engagements assigned them, having a 
direct tendency to stimulate their reading of books, 
and render it profitable ? Some time ago there was 
a noble movement among elders to improve their 
own order. Let them not languish in this enterprise. 
Let them magnify their office. Let them show that 
they have a high conception themselves of the trust 
confided to them, and others will rold it in like 
estimation : but if they let down the office, what 
wonder if others trample it under foot. And how are 
they to magnify it ? By demeaning themselves con- 
sequentially — by walking with the air and strut of 
office ? Assuredly not. They must qualify themselves 
for ruling, and then rule with diligence. The church, 
through all its sections of young and old, rich and 
poor, near and remote, must feel the pervading effi- 

that lie had also a different sort of seat from the elders on 
either side of him. In the primitive church, says "our 
learned Trorndike, ,, to use the language of Bishop Stilling- 
fleet, " the presbyters were wont to sit by themselves in a half 
circle at the east end of the church, with their faces turned to 
the faces of the people, the deacons standing behind them, as 
waiting on them, but the bishop on a throne (!) by himself, in 
the midst of the presbyters' seats."— {Right of the Church, 
chap. iii. p. 93.) They must be very intent on securing a throne 
for the bishop, who find one in the simple arrangements of the 
primitive Christians. 



348 



CONCLUSION. 



cacy of their vigilant inspection. Then it will be seen 
that they have plenty to do who have only to rule ; 
and wonder will cease to be entertained that labourers 
so estimable and invaluable have been classed by the 
apostles with ministers of the Word, as participating 
in the same superintendence of the church, and 
similarly entitled to be esteemed very highly in love 
for their work's sake. 

3. The representative principle might be more 
equally acted out by us. In some instances the 
application of it is rigorous ; in others loose and 
partial. Ministers holding the most important secre- 
taryships, and elders the most important treasurer- 
ships are not "members of court," unless they happen 
to be so by official connection with some particular 
congregation. If they speak, it is by sufferance, and 
only in relation to their own particular business ; and 
they may not vote at all. This is strict rule for 
honourable functionaries who represent the church at 
large in some of its most important interests. Along 
with this strictness there is a commensurate laxity. 
Civil society is not more unequally represented in 
parliament, than is Christian society in our pres- 
byteries. If one church contain twelve hundred 
members, and if twelve churches have each a hun- 
dred members, the first twelve hundred people have 
two representatives, and the second twelve hundred 
have twenty-four representatives — the same numeri- 
cal constituency is, in the latter case, twelve times 
more adequately represented. Such facts deserve at 
least consideration. 



CONCLUSION. 



349 



4. Full advantage has not yet been taken of the 
vast power which assembled elders might wield for 
practical purposes. Presbyteries and synods have 
been called courts of review. The name points the 
injured to valuable means of redress ; but it fosters 
a fallacy if it encourage any to think that the sole or 
chief use of presbyterate gatherings is to settle dis- 
putes. There has been already a vast improvement in 
this province. Appeal cases have been diminishing 
in number : there was not one of them at the last 
meeting of the United Presbyterian Synod, and their 
place w r as occupied by the -prosecution of fitting 
measures for the maintenance and extension of reli- 
gion at home and abroad. But though we have got 
upon the right road, we are far from our destination. 
The good that a synod might do is inestimable. 
The most devoted philanthropist is feeble in his 
isolation. When he joins a church, he has an admir- 
able opportunity of engaging fellow-worshippers to 
be fellow-workers, and to advance in concert with 
him the common salvation. But what shall we think 
of the power of communicative zeal, judiciously 
developed in a synod or assembly, which acts on 
many hundreds of churches and over the whole extent 
of a nation ? If the nature of this influence were 
more duly appreciated, it would be more energetically 
put forth ; many churches and pastors, now pining in 
neglect, would be visited and revived ; the choicest 
religious literature would be showered upon our 
people ; education for all the young in the charge of 
the church would be adequately provided and hide- 



350 



CONCLUSION. 



fatigably worked. " Our waste and desolate places, 
and the land of our destruction" — the regions which 
appeared to be solitudes, they were so few and 
destroyed — would become too narrow by reason of 
the inhabitants, and a cry would be heard in many 
quarters from our crowded churches, " The place is 
too strait for me: give place to me that I may 
dwell." To none so much as to a concourse of 
ecclesiastical office-bearers is this commission given, 
"Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them 
stretch forth the curtains of thine habitations: 
spare not, lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy 
stakes: for thou shalt break forth on the right 
hand and on the left; and thy seed shall inherit 
the Gentiles, and make the desolate cities to be 
inhabited." * 

5. The friends of Presbyterian government should 
turn to better account the facilities which it affords 
for promoting the union of churches. Even where 
churches form separate denominations, they might 
have united action, of varied character and high 
importance, through their representative assemblies. 
But churches denominationally separated should seek 
more than co-operation ; they should aim at incorpo- 
ration. Happily partition walls have been falling in 
Scotland. The United Presbyterian Church is com- 
posed of three denominations ; and though they 
have been but a short time amalgamated, they seem 
to have already forgotten their differences, and to be 
exhibiting, through all the range of their fellowship, 

* Is. liv. 2, 3. 



CONCLUSION. 



351 



the good and pleasant spectacle of brethren dwelling 
together in unity. The Free Church, by its attrac- 
tive force, has been also drawing smaller bodies into 
its communion. Would that the same career were 
pursued in England! A union of the English evan- 
gelical Presbyterians would bring to them new life, 
new strength, a new footing in public estimation, and 
would rear a barrier, infinitely more effective than 
public meetings or indignant protestations, against 
the formidable encroachments of the power of Rome. 
I am happy to introduce here a resolution passed by 
the Presbytery of which I am a member : " 1852, 
March 9. In regard to the overture 6 for the forma- 
tion of a Synod in England, to consist of the minis- 
ters and representative elders south of the Tweed/ 
sent down by Synod for the consideration of Presby- 
teries, it was agreed to report that the Presbytery 
do not deem it advisable that a separate Synod should 
in the meantime be formed; but believing that 
important ends may be served by our Presbyteries in 
England meeting together and consulting on measures 
that affect the interests of Presbyterianism south of 
the Tweed, are of opinion that all facilities for this 
purpose should be afforded by the Synod, and that 
the Synod should favourably regard any movement 
towards closer union between the various bodies of 
evangelical Presbyterians in England"* When the 
evangelical Presbyterians of England shall have 

* This extract, and another preceding it, were kindly fur- 
nished, on application, by my friend, the Rev. George Jeffrey, 
our efficient Presbytery Clerk. 



352 



CONCLUSION. 



become united, the next question may be, how far 
the principles of Owen furnish a basis for the union 
of Presbyterians and Independents? 

I will not extend farther these suggestions. What- 
ever causes may, in the providence of God, conduce 
to the result, we have the most decisive warrant for 
expecting prosperity to the one church of Christ : 
64 For the Lord shall comfort Zion : he will comfort 
all her waste places ; and he will make her wilderness 
like Eden, and her desert like the garden of the Lord ; 
joy and gladness shall be found therein, thanksgiving, 
and the voice of melody."* Happily our differences 
do not preclude us from unitedly imploring, even 
now, a fulfilment of these great and precious promises : 
" Pray for the peace of Jerusalem : they shall prosper 
that love thee. Peace be within thy walls, and 
prosperity within thy palaces. For my brethren and 
companions' sakes, I will now say, Peace be within 
thee. Because of the house of the Lord our God I 
will seek thy good." f 

* Is. li. 3. f Ps. cxxii. 6-9. 



APPENDIX. 



OBJECTIONS URGED AGAINST THE POSITION THAT 
"THE SEVEN" WERE DEACONS* 

I. It has been argued that the seven mentioned in 
the sixth chapter of the Acts could not have been 
congregational deacons, since they were appointed 
for the aggregate church of Jerusalem, which must 
have comprised, as appears from the number of Chris- 
tians, many subdivisional churches. Whether there 
was in any sense a plurality of churches in Jeru- 
salem, is a question which has been elsewhere con- 
sidered. Supposing this fact to be established, I do 
not perceive that it forms a conclusive argument for 
the view on behalf of which it is here adduced. (1.) 
If almoners are needed for an association of churches, 
they may be needed for distinct Christian societies, 
and no reason can be assigned in principle for engag- 
ing their services in one of these relations and not in 
the other. (2.) It is not certain that each of the 
seven had to no extent a sectional trust. The par- 
ties I am reasoning with understand that the apostles 
in preaching distributed themselves among various 
assemblies, and addressed each his own hearers. But 
that there was any such apportioning of apostolic 
labour, is not declared in the sacred narrative. And 
if, in the absence of direct averment, we may infer 

*See p. 33. 

z 



354 



APPENDIX. 



that the apostles preached to different audiences, "why 
may we not, in the absence of direct averment, simi- 
larly infer that the deacons, besides doing work of a 
general nature, distributed their services among the 
several quarters of the city and societies of worshippers 
as the case demanded ? " Seven such individuals/' says 
Neander, " were chosen ; the number being acci- 
dentally fixed upon as a common one, or being 
adapted to seven sections of the church/' * If the 
seven had sectional duties, or, in other words, duties 
distinctively congregational, the argument from the 
aggregate nature of their trust falls to the ground. 

II. It has been asked if the office of deacon (as its 
functions are understood by us) be so essential, how 
the church of Jerusalem managed to do without it 
for several years ? We hold, let it be remembered, 
that the superior office includes the inferior; and 
while Jerusalem was favoured with the presence and 
labours of many superior officers, the appointment of 
inferior officers was less necessary. 

III. Because benevolent contributions made to the 
poor saints in Jerusalem at one time by the church 
at Antioch, and at another time by the churches of 
Galatia, Macedonia, and Achaia were put in charge 
of " the apostles and elders," the inference has been 
drawn that " the seven must have discontinued their 
distinctive employment," and that " their functions 
must have reverted to the parties who originally held 
them." But it is surely easier to suppose that the 
apostles and elders, in the exercise of a general super- 
intendence, were the first acknowledged in such mat- 
ters, and afterwards devolved them on appropriate 
subordinate agencies, than to imagine that the apos- 
tles resumed the serving of tables when the cause of 
Christ was rapidly extending, and the care of all the 
churches was still coming on them daily. 

* History of the Planting, &c. p. 39. 



APPENDIX. 



355 



IV. Much stress has been laid on the omission of 
the term deacons where (Acts xxi. 8) " the seven" 
are mentioned. If the case had admitted of it, would 
not the writer have said "the seven deacons V* It is 
not certain that he would. In some instances the 
apostles are simply called " the twelve," and after the 
death of Judas "the eleven/' where their apostleship 
is neither forgotten nor denied. Circumstances may- 
render a number even more emphatic than an appella- 
tion ; and there was much to give emphasis to the 
election of the first seven almoners. Amid many of 
the same class, and possibly many sevens similarly 
employed, they may still be distinguishable as " the 
seven" emphatically so designated. It is no reply 
that the twelve are often called apostles, and the 
seven never once called deacons. The first function- 
aries who served tables after the apostles are not often 
spoken of in any form, to give us varied diction regard- 
ing them ; and all we are now called to show is, that 
they might be deacons, and yet be called the seven, as 
the others were certainly apostles, and yet called the 
twelve and the eleven. 

Y. It has been argued that there were probably 
deacons in the church at Jerusalem before the seven 
were appointed. The persons who carried out the 
dead bodies of Ananias and Sapphira are called 
(Acts v. 6) young men ; and instances are adduced 
of servants, as such, being so distinguished, irre- 
spectively of their age. Examples are also brought 
to prove that these servants are sometimes, though 
not in the New Testament, called deacons. May not 
these be the deacons spoken of in the epistles of 
Paul ? In that case it is argued they had nothing 
specially to do with the management of funds, or 
seven others would not have been appointed expressly 
to fulfil this duty. 

This chain of induction is weak in several links. If 



356 



APPENDIX. 



we suppose the young men mentioned in the sixth 
chapter of the Acts to have been servants, there is 
no likelihood that they were the same order of func- 
tionaries as the deacons mentioned by Paul. Had 
the deacon ship been in existence and operation for 
several years in Jerusalem, the presumption is that 
those invested with the office would have had its dis- 
tinct appropriate title given them, and been called 
deacons, and not " young men/' Why should the 
same class be called deacons in the Epistles and young 
men in the Acts ? Again, between such work as 
that of carrying out dead bodies and the high quali- 
fications which Paul demanded in deacons, there is 
no such correspondence as to suggest identity of 
trust. These considerations create a probability that 
even if the young men were servants, they were not 
the Pauline deacons. But it is not certain that the 
phrase " young men" points in Luke's narrative to any 
kind of office. They are twice introduced in the 
course of the same chapter, and where the English 
version uses the same terms regarding them, they are 
denoted by different terms in the original. Now they 
are called vsunooi (neoteroi), and now veavitixoi (neanis- 
koi). This does not look as if they had an official 
trust with an appropriated designation in established 
use. The supposition of office is not needed. The 
social usages of the Jews will sufficiently explain why 
age was spared such service as young men are declared 
by Luke to have performed. And though the con- 
struction in the original has been pleaded as favouring 
an official sense of the words, eminent scholars have 
controverted this plea and pronounced it to be nuga- 
tory. Dr Xeander says, ' ' It is far from clear that, 
in the last quoted passage of the Acts, the narrative 
alludes to persons holding a distinct office in the 
church : it may very naturally be understood of the 
younger members, who were fitted for such manual 



APPENDIX. 



357 



employment, without any other eligibility than the 
fact of their age and bodily strength. And, there- 
fore, we are not to suppose that a contrast is intended 
between the servants and ruling elders of the church, 
but simply between the younger and older members."* 
My friend Professor Lindsay says, " With respect to 
the passage in Acts v. 6, it cannot be made clear, I 
think, that the phrase 6/ vewregoi means any class of 
officers. It is true the form of expression is the very 
same as would be employed if a special class of offi- 
cers were referred to, and therefore, if in any preced- 
ing chapter mention had been made of certain young 
men being employed to serve, then it could not be 
doubted that the reference here was to them. But 
there being no such previous mention, the question 
comes to be, how is the article to be accounted for ? 
If nothing would account for it but the supposition 
of young men having been previously appointed to 
do service, then that supposition would be rendered 
highly probable. But the article may be otherwise 
accounted for. It may be employed to distinguish 
the younger men from the older men present at the 
time. The passage, therefore, furnishes no proof that 
6i veursgoi means a certain class of officers." 

VI. It has been objected, that if we place the funds 
of the church in the charge of deacons, we give them 
a dangerous power, and in fact place all other parties 
in the church at their mercy. But this objection 
would apply equally to managers, who have now the 
principal charge of ecclesiastical revenues in some 
Presbyterian churches. Why are these managers not 
found to be formidable to Sessions ? The answer is, 
that elders are eligible to be managers, and that the 
number of elders admitted into the management suf- 
ficiently precludes, in almost all cases, the undue de- 
pression of their order. The same result would still 

* History of the Planting, &c, vol. i., p. 36. 



358 



APPENDIX. 



more certainly follow if all elders, in virtue of their 
eldership, were held to possess the lower office in the 
higher, and therefore to be entitled to participate in 
the business of the deacons' council with those who 
are simply appointed to the deaconship. 

These and like objections may be somewhat per- 
plexing : but I consider them to have little weight 
against the evidence that has been adduced for the 
deaconship of the seven. 



THE END. 



WOEKS BY THE SAME AUTHOK. 



L 

Foolscap 8vo, cloth, price 4s. 6d., 
Fourth Edition, Revised and Enlarged, with Coloured 
Frontispiece, and Woodcut Illustrations, 

THE PRINCIPLES OF GEOLOGY EXPLAINED 
AND VIEWED IN THEIR RELATIONS TO 
REVEALED AND NATURAL RELIGION. With 
NOTES and an APPENDIX, by Professor Scouler, 
Dublin. 

" This volume is every way worthy of its author, one of the 
most accomplished and iofiuential divines of the church to 
which he belongs, and shows that he, at least, has not suffered 
himself to fall behind his age. Were we asked where, in the 
compass of a few hours' reading, a man might best acquaint 
himself with the actual state of the question between the geolo- 
gists and the theologians, we would at once refer him to the work 
of Dr King. The clearness and fairness of all its statements are 
scarce less admirable than the ability shown in establishing 
their perfect compatibility with the most important deductions 
of ethical science, and in conclusively demonstrating how pos~ 
sible it is to be at once a good geologist and a sound divine."— 
Hugh Miller. 

II. 

Third (and Cheaper) Edition, Foolscap 8vo, cloth, 
price Is. 6d., 

THE RULING ELDERSHIP OF THE CHRISTIAN 
CHURCH. With Remarks on the Liability of 
Ecclesiastical Office-bearers to Actions for Damages^ 
by James Peddie, Esq., W.S. 
*** This work has been prepared with the view of forming a 
complete and cheap Manual upon the subject. 

" It should be in the hands of every elder ; and we scarcely 
know any thing that would be more conducive to the welfare 



Works by the same Author— Continued. 



of the church than that every elder should be imbued with its 
spirit."— The Christian Journal. 

"This is a succinct but singularly clear and well-digested 
treatise, which we strongly recommend to the perusal of elders 
in office, and of those who look forward to the appointment." 

— Free Church Magazine. 



Third Edition, Revised, Foolscap 8vo, cloth, 3s. 6d., 



" The best modern work on the subject with which I am ac- 
quainted is that of Dr King. It is very able, clear, and convincing. 
Its topics are discussed with great simplicity, but not less power. 
It is learned, yet to a cultivated mind not difficult, He has 
not omitted any important bearings of the subject ; but he has 
introduced them often in new connections. His work is very 
free from formality, yet it is most logical and luminous." — Rev. 
Dr Morgan, Belfast (Treatise on the Lords Supper). 

"This is a very valuable work for general readers. It is 

clear, comprehensive, and catholic The matter sound 

and judicious, the language elegant and forcible, and the temper 
earnest and devout." — Eclectic Review. 



Foolscap 8vo, cloth, price 3s., by post 3s. 6d., 

THE STATE AND PROSPECTS OF JAMAICA, Hfth 
Appended Remarks on its Advantages for the Cure 
of Pulmonary Diseases, and Suggestion^ to Invalids 
and others going to that Colony. 

11 A little but deeply interesting volume, from which we have 
learned more regarding the present prospects, moral and eco- 
nomic, of those British colonies on which emancipation has 
chiefly told, than from every other work we have read on the 
subj ect. "— Ed inburgh Witness. 



III. 



THE LORD'S SUPPER. 



IV. 



EDINBURGH : JOHNSTONE & HUNTER. 



H 







talk-. °~ ^ 



r 







FEB 82 

N. MANCHESTER, 
INDIANA 46962 




